Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 12, 2006 06:10 PM
Indeed. Thanks for this article Tom. I think your final remarks at the Summit were very needed though I was surprised about the coolness with which they were received. Soros sponsorship I can swallow (just) but once you get into Google, and certainly Microsoft you have to start asking yourself what the hell iCommons/CC even stands for.
CC currently suffers from a kind of American centric universalism. CC thinks it can be the license for everyone and promote it's values as universal (sound familiar?). A dangerous and arrogant idea that leaves CC meaning almost nothing (because it fails to stand for anything) and hopping into bed with dubious sponsors (some of whom apear to buy their way onto panels even!!).
Lessig's comment that we can't define the movement because we'll all end up disagreeing is hogwash. The iCommons board is defining the movement and their version of free culture includes Microsoft and Google. iCommons risks alienating some of their core supporters/promotors and an "open revolt" as Tom mentions. The only way to hold this off is to get back to the grassroots and have the leadership follow the direction of the base rather than dictate from above. How about a bit of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcommander_Marcos" title="wikipedia.org">Zapatismo</a wikipedia.org>? Though I must say I have serious doubts as to the activist abilities of self-appointed iCommons board. Good beaurcrats and venture capitalists they may be but building a successful grassroots network is something entirely different. <a href="http://agp.org/" title="agp.org">http://agp.org/</a agp.org>
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:He who pays the piper picks the tune...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 12, 2006 06:10 PMCC currently suffers from a kind of American centric universalism. CC thinks it can be the license for everyone and promote it's values as universal (sound familiar?). A dangerous and arrogant idea that leaves CC meaning almost nothing (because it fails to stand for anything) and hopping into bed with dubious sponsors (some of whom apear to buy their way onto panels even!!).
Lessig's comment that we can't define the movement because we'll all end up disagreeing is hogwash. The iCommons board is defining the movement and their version of free culture includes Microsoft and Google. iCommons risks alienating some of their core supporters/promotors and an "open revolt" as Tom mentions. The only way to hold this off is to get back to the grassroots and have the leadership follow the direction of the base rather than dictate from above. How about a bit of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcommander_Marcos" title="wikipedia.org">Zapatismo</a wikipedia.org>? Though I must say I have serious doubts as to the activist abilities of self-appointed iCommons board. Good beaurcrats and venture capitalists they may be but building a successful grassroots network is something entirely different. <a href="http://agp.org/" title="agp.org">http://agp.org/</a agp.org>
#