![]() | This article was a Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject Open 26 December–3 January, 2013. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Free Music - hey all, this is innovati. I have noticed that the music industry seems to have some problems with copyrights and DRM, as well as public broadcast. We have the wonderful RIAA, MPAA for mainstream music and video, and organisations like CCLI for sacred music and other groups for other interests. I believe that they have long outlived their usefulness and that it is time for us content creators to release music freely, for whatever use, over the internet.
A new copyrighting system needs to be used, not cretive commons. The new system must include these points: Author, freedom to copy, freedom to publish, freedom to perform publicly, freedom to make derivative works as well as others.
Churches especially don't need to pay licencing for each song they sing - that makes every sacred service similar to the broadcast of a radio station - I see that similar to the Money changers and vendors in the temple, a story from the bible where those profiting off of religious services were called thieves.
I know the talent is out there for recorded, tracked, midi, sheet and tabbed music to be placed in a general repository, indexed and sorted by category, and I believe it's our duty to at least start by catalogueing all of the available public domain music.
Please contact innovati@gmail.com if you share this charge.
OK thx Poeka D ( talk) 17:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Should the title really be Free Culture Movement and not Free Culture movement? Movements are generally downcased. Also, the section Wikipedia strikes me as a bit effusive, and possibly a violation of WP:SELF. -- maru (talk) contribs 04:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Remove the Image of Lawrence with his Apple Laptop and replace it with a different one. Apple for one stands for vendor lock ins and strict proprietary licenses. This is exactly the opposite of FREE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.114.197 ( talk) 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I just upload a picture on commons that illustrate this subject. It could be used for the article. What do you think?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_BATTLE_OF_COPYRIGHT.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuo-fr ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
FreeCulture.org forwards here, and I believe that is incorrect. FreeCulture.org is a student organization, that's the name it was incorporated under, that's its official name, and it should not be called "the free culture movement". For one thing, we don't claim to represent the entire movement, we're just a student organization. If you're talking about the movement in general, it would probably be more informative / accurate to discuss visionaries such as Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, Jimbo Wales, and perhaps list other organizations such as Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, etc. alongside FreeCulture.org.
Can we split FreeCulture.org off into a separate article and stop confounding the entire movement with a single student organization? -- Skyfaller 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (For the record, I co-founded FreeCulture.org and can provide lots of information backed by mainstream sources.)
I removed all external links not used as references in this article. There is no need for external links to organizations since they should have their own Wikipedia entry (eg Freeculture.org). PuerExMachina 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to revert this partially. I find the links useful. They give a background to the subject. The article is not so long yet and it is good to find other free ressources. Also not all the links are to external organisations (I leave freeculture.org out of this list) but to articles about the topic. References/Sources should be included seperately anyway. Mario Behling 09:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Should "Free Culture" be capitalized everywhere or not? — Omegatron 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following to talk. If someone disagrees, they can revert my changes:
=== Wikimedia === [[Wikimedia]]'s projects, such as the popular [[Wikipedia]], which are licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] and different Creative Commons licences, arguably constitute the largest single free culture project. Based on ideas of the free culture movement, [[Wikimedia]] founder [[Jimmy Wales]] also has announced ten challenges for the movement in general with [[meta:Transwiki:Wikimania05/Presentation-JW1|A Free Culture Manifesto]] at the [[Wikimania]] 2005. According to Jimmy Wales, those 10 things that should be free within the next decade are: # [[Encyclopedia]] — in all languages; [[Wikipedia]] # [[Dictionary]] — in and for all languages; [[Wiktionary]] # [[Curriculum]] — in every language and for every grade; [[Wikibooks]], [[Wikiversity]] # [[Music]] — [[Wikimedia Commons]] # [[Art]] — [[Wikimedia Commons]] # [[Free file format]]s # [[Map]]s — [[Wikimedia Commons]] # [[Identifier|Product identifiers]] # [[TV listings]] # [[Community|Communities]] Former board member and trustee [[Tim Shell]], however, suggests that the Wikimedia Foundation's use of free content was not meant to be an ideological position: {{quote|For example, should we have an official position on the free culture movement? Wikimedia is part of that movement, but I would say this is so because of practical considerations, rather than ideological ones. It was assumed that people would be more willing to contribute to Wikipedia if they knew their work could not be seized and owned by someone else, and it was decided that all contributions would be licensed accordingly.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:TimShell | title = Should we be value-neutral outside the scope of our essential mission? | accessdate = 2007-09-19 | last = Shell | first = Tim | authorlink = Tim Shell | date = [[2006-08-25]] | work = Wikimedia Meta-wiki }}</ref>}}
The fundamental flaw of the Free Culture Movement that I see is that nowhere here or elswhere exist a well articulated method of the producers of valuable copyrightable and patentable products exist for them to get paid and such will lead to revolt by the producers of innovation products. A perfect example is what happened to Napster, destroying the entire new music business and the discrediting of that system and phylosophy by the hand of the outraged public through government laws and then actions. Soon the only producers of written texts present texts devoid of value and by those incapable of producing otherwise valuable products such as Stallman and Lessig. Their only "product", if one would call it that is attacks on intellectual property. End result is that no one is better off as actual producers of viable, valuable products will not be paid and will quit producing valuable innovations as was with the Napster fraud. Does anyone of you have a counter to this argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.36.136 ( talk) 08:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, money should not and is not the only motivation for creativity. Wealth is not the only, nor primary goal of any creator. The social impact of the product is the most rewarding result. Although recognition for one's work is nice, it should not be and isn't the main force driving creation. Most would not cease creating even if they knew they would not be personally recognized as being the sole creator of their work. Anyone who feels that they must capitalize on their work for it to be worth it to create is disgraceful. Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.86.65 ( talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_20#Category:Movement_against_intellectual_property. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is a self-contradicting mess.
Is this movement about "free of charge"-works? (then why is the Free Software Foundation even mentioned?)
"Free to use"? (but might have licence restrictions and Terms of Use (like Adobe Reader))
"Free to edit/analyse"?
"Free as in do-whatever-you-want-with-it-even-commercial-stuff"?
-- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how inclusive the movement is, but lately I was wondering if Edward Snowden could be said to be part of the movement. The New York Times mentioned Julian Assange as being a member of the movement in an article about Jimbo Wales. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've moved a lot of the links from the 'See also' section here, so they are not cluttering up the article but can be used as a reference for people to improve the article. - Lawsonstu ( talk) 12:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free culture movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://matteopasquinelli.com/docs/ideology-of-free-culture.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
"The decline of news media industry's market share is blamed on free culture but scholars like Clay Shirky claim that the market itself, not free culture, is what's killing the journalism industry.[13]" isn't 100% correctly, because the todays circumstances aren't the result of a really free market, but of a NONFREE pseudo- "market", controlled and terrorised by Mafia (etc.) and other hidden (international) "interest groups" with their hands in the congress an white house, courts, parliaments (and so on) worldwide too. And if someone says, my words would be "antisemitic": No, the aren't. But we don't live in paradise and not all persons are fools ... Hella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.25.242 ( talk) 22:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
While Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation and movement as a whole, most of the content in the "Skepticism from the FSF" section are the personal views of Richard Stallman himself, not the free software foundation. It should either be removed or edited to reflect the FSF actual views. Tauin ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)