[linux-audio-user] Copyleftmedia News: The GIMP and Sex, New Madonna Remix Project contributions

[Rob]

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