|
I blogged some quibbles about the Bonyton article in the Times about a week ago. In it I noted (but nothing more) PFF's attack on the movement. That led PFF's James DeLong to send an email to his followers, in which he states: The [Free Culture Movement] does not think that production and consumption of intellectual creations should be organized by property rights and markets. Instead, it favors a mechanism of production based on the open source software movement, in which software is made available at no charge, and is also freely modifiable by the world at large.
So this is obviously yet another Washington DC non sequitur. For again: "open source software" and free software both are built upon intellectual property (however distasteful that word is to some). So it is plainly "organized by property rights and markets." It is not organized in the way that Microsoft likes to organize at least some of its property. But property owners choosing how to make their property available is obviously at the core of a property system. Why would PFF be against that?
But here's the real question. Do these DC types (a bit of bit-head thinking, I agree, but sometimes it is necessary) really just not read? Or is this willfulness inspired by the belief that their funders don't read?
And Mr. DeLong: If you'd like to debate this in a context where misstatements can be corrected directly, I'd be honored to debate you. Obviously, that would have to be an "open" context, where people were "free" to disagree with you and quote you without your permission. I hope that isn't too communistic for your taste. [Lessig Blog]
10:11:17 PM 
|
|
