Heiko Recktenwald on Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:07:20 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> My Lawyer is an Artist


Am 11.11.2011 14:23, schrieb Aymeric Mansoux:

> It is in fact a crucial stage. By doing so, the author allows her or
> his work to interface with a system inside which it can be freely
> exchanged, modified and distributed. The freedom of this work is not
> to be misunderstood with gratis and free of charge access to the
> creation, it means that once such a freedom is granted to a work of
> art, anyone is free to redistribute and modify it according to the
> rules provided by its license. There is no turning back once this
> choice is made public.

This is IMHO pure nonsense. IMHO nothing can stop a pruducer from
changing his mind for the future. Why should it be the way you
imagine? What should be the reason for such a limitation ("no turning
back") of his freedom? Can you show me, sorry, ONE case where a court
has decided in your way?

This artist is a lawyer,

very best,


> The licensed work will then have a life of its own, an autonomy
> granted by a specific freedom of use, not defined by its author, but
> by the license she or he chose.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org