What is Free Culture?

What is free culture?
Free culture is a growing understanding among artists and audiences that people shouldn't have to ask permission to copy, share, and use each other's work; it is also a set of practices that make this philosophy work in the real world.

The opposite of "free culture" is "permission culture", which you probably don't need to have explained in detail because you're familiar with it already.  In the permission culture, if I write a book and you want to translate it, you have to get my permission first (or, more likely, the permission of my publisher).  Similarly, if I wrote a song and you want to use it in your movie, you have to go through a series of steps to get clear permission to do so.  Our laws are written such that permission culture is currently the default.

In free culture, you just translate the book, use the song, etc.  If I don't like the translation or the film, I'm free to say so, of course, but I wouldn't have any power to suppress or alter your works.  Of course, free culture goes both ways: I'm also free to put out a modified copy of your movie using a different song, recommend someone else's translation that I think is better, etc.  These are idealized examples, for the sake of illustration, but they give the general idea: freedom takes precedence over commercial monopolies.

There is plenty of free culture out there already.  In the past all culture was free culture; in today's legal environment, the way people create free culture is to put their work out under a free license -- a special copyright license that explicitly allows most of the activities that standard copyrights prohibit.  Free culture means you can perform it, record it, distribute it, use it in your own works, and anything else.  It does not mean you can claim credit for things you didn't do; that would just be fraud or plagiarism (fortunately, it turns out that allowing works to spread freely is the best way to prevent plagiarism anyway).

Free culture artists make money too.  Mostly they do so in the same ways artists always have: direct audience support, commissions, patronage, government and academic support, etc.  (Copyright-controlled distribution has never been a major source of funding for art, and wasn't designed to be.)  Free culture artists make a point of working with their audiences instead of against them.  They inhabit the Internet as natives, instead of stumbling around in awkward space-suits made of contracts and copyrights and permission forms whose real purpose is to cause enough friction that a corporation has to be paid off to reduce it.

Distilled into a few basic principles, free culture means:

• Artists can use each others' work without asking permission.  If you're not already convinced that freedom is valuable in itself, read this.  Or this.  Or this.

• People can receive and transmit art by whatever physical means are available to them.  We've got an Internet -- let's not be afraid to use it.

• The distinction between audience and artist is fluid, and should remain so because culture is participatory.  Free culture means anyone can engage with art and other works of the mind, however they want, without hiring a lawyer first.

• Artists are paid for what they do, not for what other people do.  Artists should be paid up front for the work they do.  But charging again for music every time a copy is exchanged, for example, is silly.  The musicians didn't do extra work to make more copies, and the copies are transactions between third parties.  In the long run, making it harder to share art hurts artists as much as audiences.

• Monopolies hurt everyone except the monopolist. Permission cultures tend to concentrate control in the hands of people who specialize in accumulating control, without doing much to help artists.  There's nothing wrong with running a business that deals with art and artists, of course; the problem isn't middlemen, it's monopolies.

One common argument you'll hear against free culture is that "it should be the artist's choice" -- that if an artist chooses to put their work out under a free license, that's fine, but they shouldn't be required to do so.  However, this argument is not as clear cut as it first seems.  When an artist (or, let's be realistic, a corporation) is given the power to restrict what other people can do with their own copies of things, that takes away everyone else's choice.  When two "choices" oppose each other, we cannot resolve the issue by appealing to choice itself as a value -- we have to actually look at which choice is better.  Free culture's answer is that freedom should take precedence; that since no one forces an artist to release their work, once they do release it, it should really be free to spread.  Remember, this isn't about credit: of course artists should be properly credited for their work.  But that's very different from controlling who can see and use the work.

These issues simmered until the Internet came along, and then they really started to boil.  Copying became physically so cheap as to be almost costless, and yet the laws against copying only got tighter and tighter, as a frightened industry lobbied for longer copyright terms and more restrictions.  This is the dynamic that has given rise to the free culture movement.

(By the way, it was that industry who invented copyright in the first place -- in the late 1600s and early 1700s, printers devised it as a replacement for an expiring censorship-based monopoly system.  I can't emphasize that enough: a system designed by business for business is not going to put artists' interests first, and that's why it never has. Free culture is not anti-business: there are lots of ways to make money, and if some of those ways involve helping artists and audiences connect, that's great.  In a sense, free culture stands for truly free markets.  It is merely against monopolies that force artists and audiences to get permission, usually for a fee and under restrictive terms, to use or access certain works.)

If you're interested in learning more about free culture, there's lots of material on this site and elsewhere on the Internet (the Students for Free Culture site is a good resource, though I think it could be clearer on exactly which freedoms are important).  There's an in-depth article here that covers the issues more thoroughly and with more historical context; and here is a good analysis of the harms done by permission culture.  If you like what you read about free culture and want to support it, there are lots of things you can do.  Whenever possible, support artists directly and by choice, not through intermediaries and under duress.  Help sponsor an art project on Kickstarter, and encourage your favorite artists to use direct audience support and release their works under free licenses.  Translate, edit, or otherwise contribute to a free cultural work.  Release your own works under free licenses.  Share this article :-).  Spread skepticism whenever you see special pleading, especially in word choice: copying is not "theft", "filesharing" is really "music sharing", a copied DVD is not equivalent to a "lost sale", etc.

Free culture is culture.  That's all it has ever been.  The question is simply how much we value freedom.

The Four Freedoms of Culture

Nina Paley has reiterated the four basic freedoms of Culture.   They are basically:

the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it

the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it

the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression

the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works 

Well, doesn't that sound good to your ears? The problem with creating good works for the use of others is that it is automatically put under copyright.  While that is a good thing, the terrible thing about it is that you are forced to police your copyright yourself, or face the danger of selling printer rights or all your rights to a publishing company (like Wizards of the Coast or Disney, to name two).

As liberal as the Wizards of the Coast were, it was a good thing that they made the Open Game License.  However, the flaw was that people weren't able to fully exercise their rights above.  This is important, because imagine what it would be like if you could comment and have the freedom to use the work.  Or to make and redistribute copies, or even to make changes and improvements and to distribute derivative works.

After all, culture is important to us as Gamers.  We as DMs buy a piece of work from Wizards of the Coast or some other Roleplaying production company and use it to provide free entertainment to a couple of others.  Also as DMs, we create our characters and adventures and tell wonderful interactive stories.  And if we aren't free to do that with the games we bought, how can we advance our own culture as gamers?

Everyone needs to know that a Roleplaying Game Setting, once published, is culture.  And Culture should be free.  Oh, by the way, the cartoons were made by Nina Paley.

Nudism!!

I haven't posted about Nudism in a long while.

Basically, nudism is the practice and philosophy of living naked. You get naked, you live that way, its simple enough, right? Well, being nude all the time presents its challenges. People object to it because they are afraid of what people will think of them. Particularly if you are a gamer yourself: and your body is flabby.

Most people think only those with hard bodies, or thin bodies, should have the right to be nude. This is wrong thinking. Nudists come in all ages, all shapes and sizes. Hard Bodies may need not be the only ones to apply. In fact, many nudists and naturists are Christians: so any religious affiliation is also allowed.

Nudism isn't:
* About sex.
* About getting girls.
* About exhibitionism (that's different).
* About rebelling.

Nudism is:
* About body image.
* About love.
* About enjoying yourself in the nude.
* About being free.

In fact, if you want to lose weight and reshape your body, Nudism is a natural first step in the process. By accepting your body as you are, you can reshape it easily into the look you want to be. Loving yourself, being one with yourself, allows you to shape your body more easily. Naturism often distinguish themselves from nudists: they are typically nude in nature, they say. But the end result is the same. Your nude, your in touch with your surroundings, and you are part of your surroundings: whether you are in a building or in a forest. The end result is always the same.

A Special Report!

The United States of America is a Crown Colony, a corporation working for the Queen of England. Every citizen of the United States of America is in fact subject to the Sovereignty of the British Crown. If you think I'm nuts, then you have not read the Constitution of the particular State you reside in or researched the Treaty of Paris 1793.

If you are British, you still have 300 million fellow loyal subjects all still loyal to the British Monarch. We aren't really free, but we are conned to thinking we are. All our taxes go to support the British Crown. This treaty was actually signed in 1783 that America will continue to operate as a Corporation for the British Monarch and all of his heirs.

"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes

permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary,

1914.

"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign

and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are

subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are

subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and

franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term

is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican

form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42,

45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

By these definitions we are still subject to the British Crown. I.e. Queen Elizabeth is still our Queen, whether we recognize her or not. As Americans, we believe we are Citizens according to the definition applied by Rome:

"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession

of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman

family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law.

All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d

century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were

citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law

Dictionary, 1914.

Next post: the Treaty of Paris 1783. Why America is still a Crown Colony and a Corporation that owes it's financial allegiance to the Queen.

The Campaign for Natural Beauty

One of the worst things about the Fashion and Entertainment Industry is what they do to average looking models. They take the model, and sit her in a booth. Then they put all the make up on her and blow her hair to make it look attractive and beautiful. After the photoshoot, they digitally scan or take the digital photo in photoshop and alter the image to erase any look of average that you can recognize. Creating a totally hypocritical and bogus picture of beauty. Like the poster below. Her breasts are artificially enlarged and her legs probably altered.


Posters

Blech! What a terrible thing to do to a beautiful woman like that. Men should campaign for more natural looking beauties, and women should fight for less hypocrisy in the Fashion and Entertainment industry. One of the best ways to start is to see the video below.

Freedom News

The Naturist Action Committee won a hard fight in Texas today, defeating a bill that was needlessly worded wrong. As was reported:

Dear Naturist:

The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) declares victory in the fight against a legislative bill that threatened naturists in the state of Texas.

Texas House Bill 1466 attempted statewide regulation of sexually oriented businesses. The bill's broad primary definition would have included naturist and nudist parks, camps and resorts. Any other business (like a health club or bowling alley) that might be rented or used temporarily for naturist activities could also have been defined as a sexually oriented business.

With help from NAC and NAC's professional legislative lobbyist, House Bill 1466 found itself mired in committee. The bill is dead.

DISCUSSION

Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington) was the sponsor of HB 1466. First elected in 2002 with the help of money from the political action group of discredited former Congressman Tom DeLay, Rep. Zedler has enjoyed success with a number of his bills.

The threat to naturists from House Bill 1466 was frightening and easy to understand. To the customary list of sexually oriented business definitions, HB 1466 added "any other commercial enterprise ... whose employees or customers appear in a state of nudity."

Not only would the definition have applied to every naturist and nudist park in the state, it would have included gyms, spas and pools with changing rooms.

WHAT HAS NAC BEEN DOING ABOUT THIS BILL?

Immediately after House Bill 1466 was filed, the Naturist Action Committee hired a professional Texas legislative lobbyist for assistance and advice. While working behind the scenes to kill the bill, NAC and its lobbyist also developed and presented revised language for HB 1466.

NAC considered it essential to assure that naturist resorts and parks in Texas would not be considered "sexually oriented businesses." At the same time, NAC saw it as equally important that other commercial venues would not be discouraged from allowing naturist usage, out of concern for being labeled as "sexually oriented businesses." The revised language that NAC developed was based on conditions of usage, and not on organizational affiliation.

On February 21, 2007, the Naturist Action Committee issued a NAC Advisory concerning House Bill 1466. The text of that Advisory is archived on the Web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

Some legislation is best dealt with quietly, and House Bill 1466 is an example. In this instance, NAC chose not to call for the sort of grass roots action that can be so very effective in other situations.

WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?

This is an update and an announcement of a specific victory. The Naturist Action Committee is NOT asking you to take action at this time. The threat from House Bill 1466 is gone, but those who introduce such legislation are not. Please watch for NAC Action Alerts, Advisories and Updates on other topics of interest to naturists.

MORE INFORMATION

You can access additional information on the Web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

www.naturistaction.org

Select "Alerts, Advisories and Updates." Under Current Updates, you'll find the text of this NAC Advisory, along with links to the complete text of Texas House Bill 1466 and the NAC Advisory of February 21, 2007.

PLEASE HELP NAC HELP NATURISTS

As the nonprofit volunteer political adjunct to The Naturist Society, the Naturist Action Committee is a vigorous force at work on behalf of naturists. NAC stands up for private naturist and nudist resorts, parks and camps, just as it champions the responsible clothing-optional use of public lands.

NAC does not hesitate to engage legislative lobbyists when it becomes necessary. But lobbyists are expensive. NAC relies entirely on your voluntary support. Please donate generously with a check to:

This is actually a good thing. May the Naturist Action Committee, and other groups that value our freedom as individuals, be equally successful.