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
