Licensing

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home2/yojoaorg/public_html/yenom/drupal/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Lovely Lies - Damn Lies - and I.P.

Title-animation

Confusing the intangible with the tangible

Commenting on my post of December 12 ,2007 — What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Alan wrote, “I believe the core argument in this post is: "Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression." Without commenting on the rest of the post (which I mostly agree with), I feel this main point needs rebuttal.
    While the post in question concerned various (largely laudable) observations concerning the GNU General Public License, Alan did identify the single sentence that best captures my primary core argument. It could consequently be argued that this terribly belated response should follow Alan's comment under my original provocative post. I have, instead elected to create a new main (root level) post for the following reasons:
      1) Alan's comments far exceeds the scope of the main post.
      2) It's my unwary way of dignifying all my brutish ape-like chest pounding that has preceded this event.


Alan, graciously continues, “First, let me point out the extreme irony in this idea. It is no doubt that Mr. Z. Clark is strongly of the libertarian persuasion (as I am), sharing the two most important core beliefs of abhorrence from unnecessary force, and utmost respect for (physical) property rights. Yet, this is an argument over an abhorrence for intellectual property (IP) rights.
    Thanks, a better lead-in would be hard to come by. A no doubt conclusion (accusation) of my strong libertarian persuasion merits a few shared reflections however. I wonder if said persuasion is evident from this blog's contents or has more to do with personal knowledge of say the fact I ran against D. Gephardt as a Libertarian. In any event, the average libertarian may well cringe at any Z.Clark associations. If I had the stomach to investigate such things, Libertarians would likely still prove to be the least offensive political party in the US. But like the GPL, the mere exercise of either lends credence to a system which is ill founded at base. It's quaint at best to hope Libertarians can improve/salvage what the ‘Founding Fathers’ could not (i.e. the morbid transition from confederacy, to republic, to democracy on to socialism is systemic in nature and is fated to unfold as such despite the bloody patriot's best intentions). A flattering distinction for the GPL is that it hopefully sets a precedence (wittingly or not) of binding the machine against itself.
    To more directly contest the issue however, Alan apparently considers my inability to equate the “physical” horse in my front yard to the “intellectual” unicorn in Danny's imagination as “extreme irony” ... hmmm. All are invited to rephrase the foregoing to more advantageously reflect their perspective. Nevertheless the real crux of the problem I see lies in first 1) inventing then 2) claiming and finally 3) protecting ‘rights’ in the first place.

“blinding yourself to clear context” comment

Orwell vs. Slop

How did I cause such confusion??

Commenting on my previous post “Levels of Wealth” Part 1, Alan said in part:
... You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release ...
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. ...

    Excuse me. My above quoted lead-in was not intended to honor anyone per se (as another's sentiment could be honored while the person himself is not). I was merely interested in dissecting an example of authoritarian political blather. The type of rhetoric emitted by the dear Australian Attorney-General is hardly anything special and equally precious statements could have been readily gleaned in just about any page of any newspaper. I just focused in on an IP related instance because that theme had merited your defense. There was no interest in implying that you two were particularly in agreement. That being said however, I was taken back by your vehement reaction against Ruddock. He was providing no defense of IP at all, but was merely dutifully reporting a change to the statutes in a pathetic yet wholly typical newspeak manner.

Alan continued:
... I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes ... are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.
    What I believe I did (and as clearly as I could) was merely to demonstrate how they announce changes in the statutes by choosing vocabulary that is literally consistent only with technological issues ruled by the laws of physics. I even went through the exercise of rewording his statement to read accurate and semantically correct. So it is intriguing to imagine that anyone could honestly believe that I literally misinterpreted Ruddock. To argue that I misrepresented him might be a more legitimate attack.

What's wrong with the GNU GPL?

Antigua

No Orwellian Rights Recognized

When I first read about the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License, I was truly moved by the stroke of genius it represented! Moreover, my enthusiasm has not waned. This respect carries over to the Creative Commons efforts as well. Copyright is one of the state's basic mechanisms for seducing weak minds into sanctioning governmental violence to enforce contrived rights who's only hope of possibly being realized lies in the menacing threat of arrogant aggression. (Whereas a peace respecting mind would only confer the notion of a ‘right’ to concepts that prevail as working solutions where coercive enforcement is needed only rarely if ever.) The beauty of Copyleft, of course, is that while it is a copyright, it nevertheless works to undue most everything a copyright is traditionally used for. Consequently, all those who conceived, perfected, and use copyleft schemes will always receive my support. However, I cannot personally use it. The reason being of course, is that the freedom campaign that I'm promoting cannot be compromised by employing the threat of legalized violence against anyone who has not willfully and actively subscribed to the ‘jurisdiction’/agent who will be carrying out any coercive enforcement.

During the last incredibly short three months, I have put a portion of my photography onto commons.wikimedia.org. Devout readers can verify this by checking commons' categories Honduras and Antigua_Guatemala. My files are all distinguished with file names that are exactly 22 characters long. All my photos currently under Antigua_Guatemala start with “GT056-Antigua” while those from Honduras begin with “HN”. The exif “Comment” of every photo carries this notice: “As no compulsive ‘jurisdiction’ can morally confer|deny any RIGHT, my photo is put in the PUBLIC DOMAIN to best advance art & integrity. Use file and visit http://yojoa.org/ego to be paid.

The ‘NOT DOING’ of licensing

The Secure EGO

Making Paying a Pleasure

Blog wise, I've certainly not kept up with my duties and objectives. Instead of reducing the times between posts, it looks more like I'm hell bent on setting new records for falling behind (Dr.Alan posted apt comments regarding this).

I've just finished composing a more difficult than average article for my new 'EGO' page (which is essentially a plan to pay persons YeNoms for using my PUBLIC DOMAIN photographic files). I was intending, of course, to post a blog covering this new initiative after I'd actually made some photography publicly available. But then I noticed the date of my last entry here and felt a little sick. So to help feel better, I'm knocking this out posthaste with another post to hopefully follow soon. So far now, the text related my concepts on 'EGO' and the future is copied below:

The options sought for obtaining goals can be squelched by the social environment one operates in. It is, however, eminent that viable goal options will eventually emerge as society matures. The option I'm trying to nurture promises to free the creative ego from the current threats of institutionalized violence. If the meaning of an “Eminent Goal Option” is now clarified then click here to jump ahead - otherwise lets further examine this word for word.

The “Eminent”

The good news first. Excluding the outside chance of some glorious war and the wholesale devastation of the physical environment, our world is unstoppably spiraling toward ever enhanced levels of rationality and an unfolding utopia. This is no compliment nor show of faith in our species. Instead, it's a mere recognition of the basic fact that in due time and despite ourselves, superior results inevitably take hold over inferior ones. Capitalism's triumph over communism, had nothing to do with the effectiveness, validity nor vehemence of any rhetorical campaigns. It had to do with clean food in the mouth and fitting apparel for the ego. Likewise with slavery (past & present) in the ‘land of the free’. Lincoln's obsession was hardly bent on freeing anyone, but in maintaining the Union. Actually, considering the nonviolent intent of the South to simply secede, the North's reaction itself constitutes an act of aggression to subjugate (enslave) the South and strip her of any sense of self sovereignty. Hence field slavery failed on its own merits (without heroic outside force). That is, compulsory servitude doesn't work - at least not compared to the cotton gin or a farm combine. This of course, only begs the point that human slaves of whatever caliber cannot perform at the same level as liberated egos.

____________________________


Syndicate content