« Un/Fahrenheit 9/11 | Main | Wisdom in the Lower Quads »

Creative Integral Commons?


What if A Brief History of Everything is re-published under a Creative Commons license? Free to be downloaded by everyone? Then Cory Doctorow and Lawrence Lessig will be in kick-ass company. I think it's high time for Integral theorists to start embracing the Free Culture, and put the "transcend and include" principle into more concrete practice. IOS should not just be another pretty phrase -- resistance is partial.
Rip, mix, and burn, with compassion.

[note: for what it's worth, this bodymind is trying to walk its talk.]

ADDENDUM:

July 6, 2004 at 06:41 PM in Free Culture, Integral Stuff | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/898751

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Creative Integral Commons?:

Comments

I wonder if KW has the power to make that happen, or if he'd need Shambhala's permission? I wonder if they'd give it?

Based on stuff I've seen Ken write about Integral Naked content, I think he might be open to the idea.

-Dave

Posted by: Dave | Jul 6, 2004 10:55:30 PM

And really, who's going to read Brief History on their Palm Pilot anyway?!? It would be very cool to be able to reuse parts of it in papers and presentations guilt free. I know I've swiped images from his Shambhala site for presentations and wondered whether I was okay under fair use laws.

Posted by: Dave | Jul 6, 2004 10:58:30 PM

hahaha.... geeks like me. i've read "Timeline" and "Dreamcatcher" on a Pocket PC ;)

Posted by: coolmel | Jul 7, 2004 12:21:22 AM

My guess is that Wilber would consider the free-use movement to be green, not integral. Artists need to be paid for their work. Integral Naked isn't free, and its not clear (to me anyways) that KW wants it to be.

Posted by: goethean | Jul 7, 2004 9:37:45 AM

if Wilber sees this as green (which i doubt), then i'll just have to disagree with my favorite philosopher in the world.

this is a misconception about Creative Commons and Free Culture. free doesn't mean cost-free. hard copies (and other derivative products) will always be for sale. free culture means less control by publishers and authors/artists (e.g. more freedom for derivative works, less years for copyright to be turned into the public domain.) this is "transcend and include" in practice. this is the essence of integral.

check these out:

"Law prof offers new book for free on the Internet "
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=13650&repository=0001_article

"Independents' Day"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p13s02-almp.html

"CD Baby Sales Doubling"
http://cdbaby.org/stories/04/01/13/1056392.html

DownhillBattle.org Resources
http://www.downhillbattle.org/resources.php

and watch this clip:
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/reticulum_rex/

thanks.

~coolmel

Posted by: coolmel | Jul 7, 2004 9:47:04 AM

Hmm, thanks. Maybe I was misled by Free Culture's usually green defenders...

Posted by: goethean | Jul 7, 2004 1:26:25 PM

My only insight into Ken's thoughts come from an email between him and Stu that I was CCed on and will quote here:

1.  the first month of IN is free to anybody.  there's a coupon on the whatsnew page that lets people sign up for a month.  natch, 2 out of 3 don't use it.  still, it is free.  people can sign up, download the entire site, and leave.  we don't care.  we are not looking to sell product but to find people who want to be part of the integral community.  if they like what they see/hear, they stay on.  if not, no worries.

I agree that Ken must be concerned with making a living. But, he's clearly also concerned with spreading the word. And, I just don't see providing some of the content of his books for free would significantly cut into his take, but it might significantly help spread the word.

Palm pilots… I love my Palm Pilot and when I was in the working world and carried it daily, I used Plkr to keep current on various web content while in meeting and appointments. But, I think I personally would go insane trying to read a full fledged book on it. Though, I certainly have other friend who also read books on there Palms. Until they make a cheap, portable reader with no backlight (fully reflective) and a general look and feel of paper, I'm stuf on dead trees.

I do totally wish that all books came with a digital copy, though. I want my digital media to have the look, feel, portability, and browsability of dead trees, but I want my dead trees to have the search and cut & paste capabilities of digital media. Can't I just have it all?!?

Just my 2¢…

-Dave

Posted by: Dave | Jul 7, 2004 4:43:54 PM

Most writers who make their living that way (and not by speaking) tend to frown on giving one of their more popular books away...

Posted by: Al | Jul 7, 2004 11:38:12 PM

i agree. but i'm talking about Ken Wilber here. he has tons of books to make his living from. and i have a feeling that he doesn't have to worry about making a living in this lifetime. the point i want to make here is that, the basic idea of the integral theory can reach more people if an introductory book is available for free. people who like it will buy the hard copy. either way, the idea would have been disseminated. and that, my friend, is priceless.

Posted by: coolmel | Jul 8, 2004 12:32:04 AM

And the more people who get turned on by the intro book, the more people who are likely to go out and purchase previous and subsequent books.

Integral crack! The first one's free.

Posted by: Dave | Jul 8, 2004 11:03:35 PM

I totally agree with Rommel and those who are for the "cc" argument. I believe, if anything, publishing ABHOE under "cc" would only increase the amount of revenue the book pulls in--and this isn't even moentioning the good it would do for integral momentum as a whole, gathering a greater readership. No, people would hook into the site, download the book, and start reading--but soon after, either from the glare of the screen or from pure Buddha-insight, they'd go out and buy the sucker and finish it with smile (after all, Ken's picture is much more personable when it isn't coded in jpeg).

A "cc" logo could benefit Ken and the "Movement" while at the same time leaving financial matters untouched or even better than they were before. Definately something worth integrating, although it must be handled delicately: the agency v. communion dynamic rears it's head. Don't publish EVERYTHING for free--that leads to lack of autonomy (i.e. funding, etc.); and don't lock EVERYTHING up as merchandise--that leads to lack of communication (i.e. why we need funds, etc).

Hell, it's hard enough to stumble upon Wilber and the Integral community as it is. I think it is time that we start taking strides at making ourselves known.

Posted by: Rob | Sep 10, 2004 12:55:26 PM

Hell, man, CC the whole of Integral Naked! Treat it like Chinese popstars treat pirate CDs... track who downloads and do an I-I roadshow in those countries/cities. Make the money off the workshops, use the the recordings as promo. Encourage people to pass them onto friends, put them on bulletin boards. Maybe I'm way off-beam, but it's hard to believe much of I-I gets funded from Integral Naked. I'm totally with Rob - people are starving for this stuff, the conversations on IN are great appetizers!

Posted by: Tim | Mar 30, 2006 11:30:25 PM

Wilber has published book excerpts on http://wilber.shambhala.com/ and draft of Integral Spirituality but he specifically requested that people not quote from draft manuscript. It seems experimenting with Creative Commons could be a next step in the sharing of the Integral meme.

Posted by: John V Clifford | Jun 5, 2006 1:57:06 PM

Post a comment