On Tue January 3 2006 19:44, miriam clinton (iriXx) wrote:
> List readers may well have been interested in the continuation
> of the Madonna Remix Project, which is on-topic for this list
> and has been followed keenly by many list subscribers. I am
> intrigued as to why a news update has caused such a stir;
The rant was 34 lines and came first; the Madonna thing was 2
lines and came last. I have zero interest in Madonna, and in
fact would think it's ultimately more harmful to associate
unauthorized remixes of such an anti-commons artist with
copyleft than to allow example images of women in J.Lo outfits.
The latter will make the world think, perhaps correctly, that
most Free Software developers and users are oversexed, socially
inept males. Since the world already has that opinion,
nothing's lost.
The former will make the world think, however incorrectly, that
we really don't care whether or not we violate other artists'
copyrights. Madge's posting of the "WTF" quote to Kazaa herself
doesn't grant blanket remix rights to everybody in the world, so
by promoting the remix project on LAU and other free software
mailing lists, you are promoting copyright infringement. If
there's anything Linux doesn't need, it's that association. I
hesitate to even post my opinion of the project lest it come
back someday to bite us.
I'll take "chauvinist" over "criminal" any day, when it comes to
free software's "professional image".
I also assumed that the post was simply a copy and paste of the
content from the link at the top, since they began the same way;
apparently, I was in error. However, the version on the web
seems substantially the same to me, with some additional
material about objectification and anorexia and apparently the
kinds of images people are attracted to. I'm not going to
debate those points, because they didn't appear on this list and
they'd have been even more off-topic than our discussion.
Without being privy to the original conflict, my comments stand
as they are.
> It intrigues me as to how oversensetive you are in your
> responses as well - anyone who read the actual article would
Again, I misunderstood the purpose of the link at the top of your
post, but I see no need for ad-hominem attacks, nor the overuse
of "immature" you keep throwing around: from your perspective,
posting cleavage is immature, while from my perspective,
objecting to someone else posting cleavage is immature. And
doing so while potentially exposing the list to legal liability
is irresponsible at best.
I know I'm not going to change your mind, so you might as well
declare us immature and walk away again.
Rob
Received on Wed Jan 4 08:15:04 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 04 2006 - 08:15:04 EET