From 66848905f2ad8f336fbaa73ba1226a11a63423f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Ortega=20Froysa?= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:26:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] New blog post on Culture as a Common Good. --- .../2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.cfg | 5 + .../2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html | 174 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.cfg create mode 100644 blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html diff --git a/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.cfg b/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5064dc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html +title = Culture as a Common Good +description = For a long time I have attempted to reconcile the Church's recognition of Intellectual Property with the nature of culture as a Common Good. In this post I try to synthesize these two. +created = 2021-02-19 +updated = 2021-02-19 diff --git a/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html b/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0c273a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2021-02-19-culture-as-a-common-good.html @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +

As anyone who is familiar with my works (and their licenses) would +know, I am very much a supporter of what's known as Free +Culture[1] and Free +Software[2]. Although for the rest of this +article I will be referring to both culture and software simply as +"Culture", since for the purpose of this article I see no point in +distinguishing between the two. I later found that the reason for this - +which I only understood intuitively - is that Culture is what we may +call a Common Good. Yet, at the same time I found this difficult +to reconcile with a recognition of Intellectual Property, to the extent +that for many years I simply rejected it. Yet I believe that this truly +is not contradictory, and in light of Church teaching regarding the +Universal Destination of Goods, we can fully understand how they +function together and use it to reinforce the case for Free Culture.

+ +

To begin, it's necessary to define a few things, foremost of which is +a Common Good. It's a term that we use a lot today, especially in +the realm of politics, but in such a vague manner that if one were to +ask what it means many of us would struggle to define it. Oxford +Dictionary defines it as "[t]he benefit or interests of all". Yet even +this is vague, at least when taken from the subjectivist mentality of +our era: one person's "interests" may be at odds with those of another. +Rather, especially since we're talking in terms of Culture as a form of +Intellectual Property, and therefore ownership, we're speaking of a more +economic or substantive definition. In this sense, what would +differentiate a Common Good from any other kind of Good is that the +intrinsic value of the share of each owner does not diminish when owned +by more people. This means that a Common Good is by its very nature a +Spiritual/Non-Material Good and vice versa. If someone owns a +whole cake, but chooses to share that cake with another person, the cake +must necessarily be divided (evenly or unevenly) such that both can own +a part of the cake, and therefore the value of the first person's share +must necessarily diminish. Meanwhile, if we were to speak of something +like knowledge, one can share knowledge that they have with another +person, yet not because of that do they now own less of that knowledge, +rather they continue to possess the entirety of that knowledge.

+ +

Perhaps an easier term to wrap our heads around that we're more +familiar with is that of Intellectual Property. Oxford Dictionary +defines it as "[i]ntangible property that is the result of creativity +[...]." For the purpose of this article, this is a rather appropriate +definition, as we're referring to a concept of ownership over the rights +to a given Spiritual/Non-Material Good.

+ +

From these two definitions we can begin to see how Culture is itself +both a Common Good and a form of Intellectual Property. Provided, it +must be specified that it is not the instantiation of a Cultural +Good that we are speaking of, but rather the idea which would compose +its Formal Cause. E.g. it is not the statue which an artists +makes that constitutes a Common Good, but rather it is the form that +defines it which is a Common Good. But from this recognition of Culture +as both a Common Good and a form of Intellectual Property, it would seem +that a dilemma arises: does not the nature of a Common Good directly +contradict that of Intellectual Property? It would seem this way, as a +Common Good tends towards broader ownership - and indeed it is good for +a Common Good to be owned as broadly as possible - yet Intellectual +Property hinders this broader ownership by limiting the ability to share +the Culture in question.

+ +

Here it is useful to attend to the Church's principle of the +Universal Destination of Goods:

+ +
+ "God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use + of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of + justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in + abundance for all in like manner. Whatever the forms of property + may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, + according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must + always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In + using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he + legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the + sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also + others."
+ - Gaudium et Spes ยง 69 +
+ +

In this sense, we are not solely speaking of Material Goods, but as +Pope Saint Paul VI points out, it applies to "[w]hatever the forms of +property may be." In this context, we see that "man should regard the +external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his +own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit +not only him but also others." In other words, with regards to Culture +we can understand that it is legitimately possessed by its creator, and +is his Intellectual Property. Yet the creator has a responsibility in +using that which he owns for the benefit of "not only him but also +others." As such, a creator may choose using his own prudential +judgement to limit the access to his Intellectual Property to provide +for himself (by monopolizing on the creation of instances of his +creation to sell them) or even to help others. It may not always be +prudent to share a Common Good so broadly (as occurs with national +intelligence or personal information). But he must always consider that +his ownership must be beneficial not only to him, but to others as +well.

+ +

Finally, I believe it's important to discuss the role of the State +with regards to the Common Good, specifically in regards to Culture, and +truthfully I believe that this does not differ much from its role with +regards to Material Property. I do not wish to extend myself too far on +this topic, since the role of the State within society is a topic best +developed in its own article. Yet I do believe we can understand the +very basics of the role of the State in regards to its natural function +regarding Culture.

+ +

Fundamentally, the role of the State is to aid and guide its subjects +in fully realizing the nature of their being. The most +fundamental requisites of this being basic necessities (e.g. food, +water, shelter), but also extending further into Man's intellectual and +spiritual nature. So with regards to Culture, it is good for Man to +possess a broad and fundamental culture, which we would deem to be basic +education, and it is within the role of the State to enable this as it +sees most practical (by private or public means). Yet, the State must +only implicate itself in this regard if the selfishness of some causes +for certain fundamental Culture to be kept from others, or simply that +lower levels of society are unable to do so on their own. At this point, +the State has the authority to act by means of expedient to justly +purchase or (in the most extreme of situations) expropriate a creator of +his Intellectual Property. E.g. if there is a given institution which +has discovered a vaccine for a pandemic which is affecting the subjects +of the State at large, yet this institution is unable to produce the +amount needed, the State has the expedient to purchase from that +institution their Intellectual Property on how to create the vaccine and +share this with others so as to ensure a greater and more adequate +production.

+ +

Yet although the role of the State is well defined, what of the role +of us as creators? How can we decide whether we should maintain the +rights to our creations in full, or concede certain rights to our +Intellectual Property? Truthfully this is a prudential judgement that +each of us will have to make depending on the circumstances. But going +back to the quote from Gaudium et Spes, I believe we are given a +decent guide: we should consider the use of our property not only for +our own benefit, but also for that of others. Obviously, one must take +care of oneself, and therefore if the most practical manner of making a +living is by maintaining the right to one's property, one should do so. +Yet if one does not require of this, or the property would do greater +good if we were to license it in a manner allowing broader ownership, +this constitutes an act of charity. The act is even greater if the +property is not only beneficial to others, but needed.

+ +

Needless to say, there is no shortage of licenses with different +conditions, both for software and culture. For software projects one can +simply take a look at GitHub's Choose a License +page[3], or for culture one may simply +choose from one of the many Creative Commons +licenses[4]. So it is not as though one +must either maintain all the rights to their works or give them all up. +Rather, one should adapt the license of their work to the circumstances +regarding the purpose of the work and what will best benefit oneself and +others.

+ + + + http://wiki.freeculture.org/Free_Culture_Definition +
+ + + https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html +
+ + + https://choosealicense.com/ +
+ + + https://creativecommons.org/choose/