Talk:Free-culture movement

message: 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.
:Hi innovati, welcome to Wikipedia.  However please note that Wikipedia articles are not appropriate venues for discussion or advertisement.  If you wish to place a notice anywhere on Wikipedia, the appropriate place would be your User page or at least this talk page. NTK 08:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding churches paying license fees to use non-public-domain songs:  a church is free at any time to use public domain songs, but if they want to use a song owned by someone else, they like anyone else must pay the owner (or other right-holder).  Use without permission would be stealing, and I'm sure you don't want to see churches doing that.  If a song's creator wishes to retain any control of his work, he sets down in concrete terms the license under which the work can be published, distributed, duplicated, performed, or otherwise used. --75.161.84.72 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free music 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's the gist of it. If we're definiting the article as being about the general idea of Free Culture, then the WM section definitely applies. If we're defining the article as being about the college group, then it doesn't belong. Stilgar135 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What? You don't see the irony in putting a free culture sticker on a Mac? :)—Sowlos (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: What? You don't see the irony in putting a free culture sticker on a Mac? :)—Sowlos (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illustration proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this is a pretty good idea. Stilgar135 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Done years ago. FreeCulture.org now forwards to the organization, which is now Free Culture Foundation.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we split the articles? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of External Links 

message: Should "Free Culture" be capitalized everywhere or not? — Omegatron 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The words "free culture" should not be capitalized. If the "Free Culture Movement" were treated as a proper name then it could be capitalized, but most sources do not do this. See Special:Search/intitle:Movement for examples of other movements some of which go by capitalized names and some of which do not.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
replies: text: Let them revolt. If money were the only motivation for creativity, we wouldn't have prehistoric cave paintings, or struggling musicians playing their hearts out for free beer in seedy bars, or teenage coders writing videogame mods from their bedrooms that have more players than the major studio titles, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Flaw 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category name 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article is mostly about free content, unless all Creative Commons licenses are considered a part of the current state of Free culture movement. --AVRS (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which free definition? 

message: 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)
thread_title: What does the free culture movement include?

message: 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)
thread_title:  'See also' section 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409021202/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v12/oldNonPaginated(DONOTUSE)/12HarvJLTech589.pdf to http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v12/oldNonPaginated(DONOTUSE)/12HarvJLTech589.pdf
*Added  tag to http://matteopasquinelli.com/docs/ideology-of-free-culture.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
replies: text: what Tauin (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reword "Skepticism from the FSF" title