For my creative commons license I chose to let people use my work. I think that any information is valuable and if mine can help someone else with their work then I want to help. I didn't let anyone modify it because if its my work its how I want it to be already. No one can modify my facebook or my other webpage, I guess its kind of a personal thing. I don't mind any advice or comments but if I wrote it, it was for a reason. I feel like this is good for people that are trying to make a living out of writing or artistry. They need their stuff to be licensed.
I don't agree to Barlow's declaration that legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. He is talking about physical matter and doesn’t take into account that the internet is giving us new identities. Most things on my facebook coincide with my real life. But some people make up a whole new life on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with you completely. I also chose to allow anyone to use my work as long as it was what I intended it to be... in whole, and unchanged.
Tacey,
I feel the same way. I liked your imput about the different types of licenses. Good Job.
I agree, I feel that if I wrote something then it should stay that way but I don't mind others using my ideas if they agree or even if they disagree, as long as my words aren't changed and accredited.
Hi Tacey. So, you believe in sharing but not modification. You want to keep the integrity of the author, to maintain the investment in authority. Do you think there's a limit to this? I mean, as more and more things get shared, remixed, swapped, etc., do you think the investment in authorship will wane? Also, interesting response to Barlow. I think you're right that he's doesn't give credence to the way people form new and very real identities online.
Post a Comment