Creative Commons continues its campaign to redefine 'open' as 'closed'. It's getting to the point where I'm feeling like I should remove my Creative Commons licenses from my material - not because I want to stop people from using my stuff, but because I want to ensure that they can. In this post the argument is that the "instinct to share" is being eroded by a 'free-for-all' in which people use our content however they want. This 'instinct', though, is a complete fabrication that doesn't have any actual properties, just ones that have been made up. Anyhow, in this retelling everything is subject to new boundaries. "The ethics of sharing - which is what open is about - needs to be broader than what we can own." No. There never was an 'ethics of sharing'. This is also something being invented from nothingness. There is no transaction here - when I share my stuff, you can do whatever you want with it, except (obviously) own it. And I am not interested in some redefinition of the 'social contract' coming from south of the border.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
