> > ahem. no, nathan, a .sig line won't automagically make people
> > do something. but then again, nor does some fantastical 'open
> > source' license that distinguishes between profit and not-for-
> > profit, which iirc was your too-clever-by-half proposal. it's
> > really pathetic what it does, by your Machtwonk standards: it
> > suggests that people should ask first. 'radical' concept...
> What is your problem? A half-hearted intellectual proposal is made and you
> make all sorts of nasty comments "fantastical", "too clever by half",
> "pathetic"
the last of which was applied to ('it') what i had suggested, a completely unenforceable statement that people should ask before reselling LBO traffic. which, afaik, has worked quite well for the nettime list for 4+ years--and it's not like we thought it up.
> Since I had noted that Smith probably had a right under fair use to quote
> the stuff, you just seem to have some real bug up your butt with me. So
i do indeed have a bug up my butt with you, which has been a-moldering in that solar space since back when dogs ruled the earth (i.e., when BS was fun). you do some fantastic work, no question, and i'll take a moment to thank you for it. i hope i can use the issue at hand to explain it in a civilized way. (and, please note, that only in the rarest case do i respond to what you send to LBO, so i certainly don't dog your every word.)
in a simple case like this, where NYP has been--dubiously, i think--'repurposing' LBO traffic on a for-profit basis, there is of course a world of 'rights' and 'controlling legal authorities' with which one can frame the problem both theoretically and practically. to do so theoretically is to announce a collective preference (like the nettime .sig line) and trust that others will honor it. to do so practically is to invoke the language of the law, with the more or less implied possibility that these apparatuses could be brought to bear. as time goes by, it has become ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that far too many people take the latter course far too often, with the result that laws and insti- tutions, both properly and quasi-juridical, are prolifer- ating out of control. this cumulative process is dangerous in the extreme, because the net results are twofold: a growing regime of ever-less accountable institutions and a thickening jungle of laws too numerous to enforce except on an ad hoc basis. both of these movements fuel a situa- tion in which the rule of law slowly is slowly mutating into the functional equivalent of state terrorism--whether expressed in civil or criminal terms, it doesn't matter-- more often than not in the service of plutocrats. there *is* an alternative to contributing to this lunacy, and it consists of dissociating one's preference from the urge to enforce it--for example, by means of a one-line .sig that says 'no commerical use without permission' and trusting that a print journal will honor it. no 'open source' trendi- ness, no rights, no controlling legal authorities, and-- above all--no guarantees founded in external authority.
if you're interested in a snippet on one way in which open- source licenses could be subverted, see the URL below.
cheers, t -
<http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/>