ITT, we discuss IP and freedom. DMCA, DRM, GNU, FSF, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA etc.
In todays technocentric society, the sharing of information has never been easier. We are reaching a critical time, though, as big corporations try to limit our freedoms.
I have my own opinions, but what do you, the people of the world think? Can we have true freedom? How much freedom should we have?
How do you define freedom? Freedom to invent without fear of it being ripped of by someone else?
I think things will still have to become worse than they are now - with lots and lots of intrusive copy protection, endless leasing of everything computer-related etc. etc. before things start improving.
I'm personally almost looking forward to something really stupid like patenting of plot types in stories or similar - right now, one still has to think about whether following the law is the smart thing to do or not, but if something like that happened it would be easy to decide to disobey our new corporate Nobles.
I should probably point out that I'm no libertarian: I like the state having control, but I see corporations as second-class citizens that don't get to vote and shouldn't be allowed too much other power either.
What we're seeing with digital media is the end of scarcity. Scarcity is the basis for all our economic systems, and with it gone, everything collapses. The big players are trying to introduce artificial scarcity through legislation, but that's unlikely to be a lasting solution. New economic models are what's needed, but those aren't going to be easy to find. It'll be a rocky ride from here on.
See it as a preview of what will happen to everything if the nanotechnology futurists' predictions come true (I don't really think that will happen, but there's a possiblity).
Ohh, instant results!
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/11/04/0239221.shtml?tid=155&tid=17
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/11/emw303435.htm
http://www.plotpatents.com/
Of course, it hasn't been granted yet, but it looks like it could be.....which is just silly, but this is the US patent system of course...: (
These pieces of legislation are a two-edged sword.
One the one hand, it costs money to produce IP. Silly patents notwithstanding, which are more a failing of the current patent office implementation, it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
On the other hand, you can be certain that the legislation will also be used to stifle competition. It'll be abused. It reduces the potential of this medium we cherish, as well as possible future developments.
That last bit is the really interesting bit, but I'll leave it to whack futurists to guess what they might be.
>it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
I don't really get what makes it suddenly much more expensive to develop ideas. Trade secrets have been around forever to deal with protection of businesses with an edge, so innovation being important is nothing new. The only difference I see is that tools for doing lots of things - in the form of computers - are now much much cheaper. So is information. Care to elaborate?
> I don't really get what makes it suddenly much more expensive to develop ideas.
Sure it is. Turn back a century, and any educated fool could pull something out their rear-end.
Nowadays, some of that IP takes years, or even decades, of teams of trained individuals to produce.
I'm not just talking about computers, although more recent programs take larger teams to develop too. Take a look at the games industry, or compare today's OS to a decade or two ago.
This thread is polluted by Alexander. Make a new thread and ban him from it.
>I'm not just talking about computers, although more recent programs take larger teams to develop too. Take a look at the games industry, or compare today's OS to a decade or two ago.
This would be a problem for anyone advocating a complete removal of copyright - which I don't. As it is, I don't see any reason to have stronger copyright and patents than we already have.
I like the idea of light protection for so-called "intellectual property" since it will filter out the inefficient people. If games cost a lot to develop - well, too bad. Don't come running to legislation for help, do something yourself.
No one has a right to profit. If something is so horribly expensive that it can't fund itself, it should either be ignored or pushed to a for-loss organization.
> As it is, I don't see any reason to have stronger copyright and patents than we already have.
Most of that legislation has nothing to do with patents. Furthermore, most of that legislation doesn't strengthen copyright either, it's a knee-jerk reaction to more strongly implements rights that already exist for the copyright holder.
Now, something needs to be done in the digital medium. If they spent X million dollars to produce something, only to have it endlessly and illegally duplicated, why should they bother? Make it cheaper, you say? Oh, but everyone will copy that too!
Yes, we all like our free shit, but warez is both illegal and immoral. If someone invests the effort, they have a right to fair compensation. Note that fair compensation precludes using and not paying for a piece of software.
> No one has a right to profit.
Well, isn't that just a nice and simplistic warez-kiddie soundbyte. Next time you use public transit, don't pay for that either. The system just sort of magically runs itself somehow!
I think you mis-read what is essentially a capitalist statement: Nobody has a right to profit. They have to work to earn it. It is not up to the law to ensure that people get a profit, it's up to those who want a profit to figure out how to get it. If they can't, then they are doing something wrong, and need to change.
>>12
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that, but the way people use that statement is flawed. Take a look at the context within it's being used in >>10.
Tell me, if I can just duplicate anything for free, how is anybody who produces IP (software, books, music, movies, etc) supposed to be paid? How is a capitalist system supposed to work then?
All that effort, and no bread on the table. See, here's the problem: people wank off to a world with no scarcity, but that only (somewhat) applies to the digital world. Unfortunately, our bodies live in the real world. House. Food. Electricity. Education. That kind of stuff, ya know?
>Tell me, if I can just duplicate anything for free, how is anybody who produces IP (software, books, music, movies, etc) supposed to be paid?
By the people who enjoy the authors work.
Are you remotely tech savvy? Do you have a better internet connection than a 56K modem? So why didn't you stop buying software/music cds/DVDs etc, when you can get it all for free?
But maybe your afraid of a total collapse of the industry, like it happend back then when the music cassette was introduced. Or the video recorder. Or the TV. Or the LP. Or radio. All of which allowed easy duplication or free consumption of creative works. We wouldn't want to repeat the disaster that followed them, would we?
A book frees authors from having to sit down personally to tell stories to listeners. A record frees musicians from having to perform before an audience. A copy of software frees programmers from having to enter the numbers themself.
Treating these as intellectual property is wanting to eat your cake and still have it.
> Tell me, if I can just duplicate anything for free, how is anybody who produces IP (software, books, music, movies, etc) supposed to be paid? How is a capitalist system supposed to work then?
It's not "supposed" to work then, and it's not supposed to work now. It does work now, it might not then. This is merely a statement of fact, not any kind of value judgement.
>Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that, but the way people use that statement is flawed. Take a look at the context within it's being used in >>10.
I said game companies (/similar) don't deserve tougher legislation to support their huge-budget stuff. How is this different from >>12?
>Tell me, if I can just duplicate anything for free, how is anybody who produces IP (software, books, music, movies, etc) supposed to be paid? How is a capitalist system supposed to work then?
I strongly agree with >>14-15 here in that this system isn't something that has to exist: complaining about copies feels a lot to me like getting angry because someone said a one's fanart sucks: you have to deal with certain things when you publish stuff. Of course the income is important for the artist, but this isn't important enough to cripple other parts of society for: "copies" aren't everything - I even hear live performances are very important for many artists' income.
> By the people who enjoy the authors work.
They'll just copy it, much like they do now. See all those torrents? Oh, that's obviously people copying things they hate!
> I even hear live performances are very important for many artists' income.
Live performance of software. Good one! Let's have book-reading parties too! And we'll get rid of movies and go back to opera!
> complaining about copies feels a lot to me like getting angry because someone said a one's fanart sucks
Why wouldn't it? Step back, and pretend you've just spent several months writing a piece of [software|book|music|etc], which you now attempt to sell. Unfortunately, nobody is buying it. But behold! You look on the web and discover that everyone is copying your work. It's a huge hit, but you've made a pittance!
How do you feel?
Software is just about the worst example you could name. Software has been freely copyable from the very start, yet after thirty years of software piracy run rampant, commercial software still exists, and is a bigger industry than ever before.
And I'm really having trouble working in a mention of open source and freeware software here, because I just can't muster the immense sarcasm needed.
> Commercial software still exists.
So what? Just because it still exists makes it alright?
People in Melbourne take the transit without paying all the time, even though they should, but the trams are still there. Is that okay too?
> open source and freeware software here
What's your point?
Elaborate to me how people copying software that has been released OSS has anything to do with copyright infringement of software that the authors want their efforts to be paid for?
And what if someone ignores an OSS license, incorporates it into another product, and doesn't return anything? Maybe like CherryOS or Sigma Design? Will your wonderfully relative morals start squeaking then? Why?
>They'll just copy it, much like they do now. See all those torrents? Oh, that's obviously people copying things they hate!
That was my point. Duplication has become easier and easier over the years. Currently it has become nearly effortless, yet there are more creative works produced than ever before and there is more money made from them than ever before.
>Live performance of software. Good one!
No, but sending your data to a firm where operators enter it into their program and send you the results (sounds impractical? Enter the internet and web services). Or hiring programmers to make a certain program for you.
>Let's have book-reading parties too! And we'll get rid of movies and go back to opera!
If I read a book the author doesn't have to read it to me. If I watch a movie the actors don't need to perform specifically for me. There is no extra work involved for them.
Where is the difference if I don't buy something because I've heard by word of mouth that it's atrouciously bad, or if I've read/watched it and don't buy it because it's atrouciously bad?
The current model is a bet that your product is good enough to make a profit through sales.
>And what if someone ignores an OSS license, incorporates it into another product, and doesn't return anything? Maybe like CherryOS or Sigma Design?
Same answer. Tough. The GPL-like licenses rely on the same flawed idea of copyright as proprietory software.
>Same answer. Tough. The GPL-like licenses rely on the same flawed idea of copyright as proprietory software.
Are you talking about EULA-style copyright or copyright in general? If you're talking about just copyright, I strongly disagree with you.
>And what if someone ignores an OSS license, incorporates it into another product, and doesn't return anything? Maybe like CherryOS or Sigma Design? Will your wonderfully relative morals start squeaking then? Why?
This looks a lot like a straw man to me. Calm down a bit - no need to mock people just because you disagree.
> Elaborate to me how people copying software that has been released OSS has anything to do with copyright infringement of software that the authors want their efforts to be paid for?
It has nothing to do with that. But your argument seems to be based on the assumption that if people won't get paid, software won't get developed. At least that's how I read this:
> One the one hand, it costs money to produce IP. Silly patents notwithstanding, which are more a failing of the current patent office implementation, it isn't cheap to develop these ideas any more. Someone has to pay under our current system.
"Someone has to pay under our current system". The whole point of the argument here is that the current system is outdated, and there's nothing intrinsically right about it, as you keep implying. You said authors "want their efforts to be paid for". I also want a pony, but I'm not getting one. Claiming it is wrong that those authors don't get paid is just an arbitary choice of ethics. The only real argument for this particular choice of ethics is that if they didn't get paid, they wouldn't make software, and society would suffer. And that's what I'm arguing against, because even if they didn't have the opportunity to charge for copyrighted software, people would still make software.
But just to clear things up, could you specify if it's wrong that software authors don't get paid because:
>>21
I was talking about copyright in general.
Why would you differentiate between "EULA-style" and "general" copyright?
Either the creator can claim intellectual proprietorship or not. So they either can dictate how their work is used (perhaps sans some very basic "rights" like quoting, but definitly in regards to backup copies or circumvention of copy protection) or they can't.
You wrote you agree with >>14 (me), but my post was intended as a rejection of copyright (in general), both as an instrument "needed" to preserve creative diversity, as well as from a philosophical standpoint ("intellectual property").
I agree with >>20 re: GPL-like licenses. They rely on the very same form of control over users that they purport to attack. (Also, the GPL has a lot of restrictions in it that have nothing to do with sharing software at all; read it sometime.)
I think a limited form of copyright is necessary for movies and for books that are the result of substantial research. Maybe computer games that require a lot of artwork and level design, as well. Other things are either cheap to produce (e.g. music) or will be made by volunteers just because they want to (e.g. software). Maybe a very light sprinkling of copyright on such things can help, but it also has the potential to hurt, too, as it is doing in its current excesses.
> dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E
>>24
The GPL is not about attacking copyright. Stallman's goal is "free software". And only if every user has the de facto ability (access to sources) and legal right (license, no patent problems, etc) to use, modifiy, and redistribute programs free of charge software will be free. Therefore the virality. Therefore the concern about web services and patents in the GPL3. So while I disagree with the tool they use to achive this (copyright) and dispute the necessity of it, their goal is honourable.
>limited form of copyright [..] for movies and for books that are the result of substantial research.
What do you regard as "substantial research"?
I didn't say GPL-like licenses purport to attack copyright; I said they purport to attack control over users. And yet they do control users. Take a look at clauses 2a) and 2c) of the GPL. Annoying restrictions that are totally unnecessary -- if the goal is sharing software, anyway.
That's without even getting into the requirement to provide source code. Care to tell me what's "free" about the fact that if I add a couple printfs for debugging, recompile, and give the result to someone to test, I have to give them the entire changed source code? Or if I provide 100 KB binaries of someone's program for convenience, I need to also provide the 3 MB source tarball, even though it's readily available on a couple dozen websites?
Let's talk about the virality. Several people who weren't satisfied with the extra pointless restrictions (see above) of the GPL have made their own super copyleft sharing licenses. The FSF says I can't link these people's libraries with their GPL'd programs. Why not? Both of the licenses are "free", right? Or does the FSF deserve a monopoly on licenses because, I don't know, God's on their side or something?
>>26
Are you >>20? If so, I guess our only disagreement is the FSF's motives. I try to stick to BSD-style licensed software, where possible.
I consider "substantial research" research that took a heck of a lot of money to perform. You decide for yourself how much you think "a heck of a lot" is. I may be wrong about that -- perhaps the research would be done anyway.
>>27
I wrote >>20 and >>26.
I misunderstood you about the copyright bit, sorry.
Re GPL: clause 2a): probably intended as a rudimentary changelog.
Clause 2c): no "inherited" warranty. One can redistribute the program without having to reimburse the next user for potential damages. The rest is advertising the GPL, period.
Your printf example is weak. If they want the GPL to have any power they can't afford to to put in vague wording like "only changes that alter the program flow significantly". It's a legal thing. And you only have to provide the source if it is requested by your "licensee". If you redistribute binaries it is sufficient if the source is availible. It doesn't have to be provided by you personally.
>Why not? Both of the licenses are "free", right?
You already said it. It's about virality and often a strategic decision (e.g. advertising the GPL. Or if they rip out the silly clauses bit by bit, they'd have the GPL2.1, GPL2.2,... that would probably weaken it more then a conflict with comparativley marginal other licenses).
The FSF wants the the GPL (aka The One True Free Software License, and more importantly, under their control) to be the "governing" license of a program. The Apache2 license is stronger copyleft than the GPL. If you write a GPL program that relies on an A2L library, the A2L would be the governing license (this may be resolved in the GPL3).
To clear up my position:
I do think "free software" (ability to use, modify , and distribute it free of charge) is good idea (sidenote: "no IP" does not imply "free software", "no IP" and "open source" does).
I do not think that achiving this by restricting the user's freedom is a good idea or even beneficial in the long run.
The FSF are strictly "free software" activists, not champions of liberty. For them the "freedom" (note the quotation marks) of the user comes as a an effect of "free software".
>"substantial research"
I'm still confused about what you consider research in regard to books and movies, especially as you liken artwork for games to it. For creative works "research" always means "duplicating information", not "creating it" (or at least "creating higly derivative information"). Could you give a practical example?
In case you are talking about scientific/engineering research (what >>28 seems to be about, patents etc), i am willing to argue about that too :)
>>25
Thanks for that wonderfully stupid link. Why would I take some twit who doesn't seem able to seperate patents and copyright seriously?
Oh yes, and today's IP production is clearly the same as it was centuries ago!
> The whole point of the argument here is that the current system is outdated, and there's nothing intrinsically right about it, as you keep implying
I never said it was, nor did I imply it. I'm arguing reality: we live in a capitalist-based system, and therefore we must work within that framework. You want IP for free? Okay, but first make everything else free too.
People who produce IP for a living want to be compensated for their work. Why? Because they want to be able to afford a house, car, and other things, that cost money.
> Claiming it is wrong that those authors don't get paid is just an arbitary choice of ethics.
Let's all start stealing from the store. It's obviously an arbitrary choice of ethics.
If a person makes software, and releases it with the stipulation that they be paid for it, then either you pay for it, or you don't use it. If I build a freeway, I want to be paid for its use. Don't want to pay? Take a different road.
People keep saying government should fuck off and private industry should do everything, but if they don't get any fruits for their labour, why should they bother? This is the way things are now, not some pie in the sky fantasy.
> But just to clear things up, could you specify if it's wrong that software authors don't get paid because:
I don't agree with any of them, but I'm closest to 2). Let me rephrase it a little:
They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
> No, but sending your data to a firm where operators enter it into their program and send you the results (sounds impractical? Enter the internet and web services).
There's a big difference here: people do that already, but they're agreeing to it. All the IP that's being duplicated out there is against the producer's will.
If you disagree with the conditions, then don't use their IP.
> They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
Facts can be disputed, analysis can be argued with, but morals are not subject to change based on logic.
I can point out that the "moral rights of authors" idea is a recent fashion, much younger even than copyright itself, which was designed to benefit society. This is true, although it proves nothing.
But neither I nor anyone can convince you that way. Moral decisions are not influenced by logic and arguments. Since you've made up your mind, there would be no point in further debating the matter with you.
>>30
Basically, you're saying that people don't produce labors of love anymore. That's a sad point of view and I'm sorry for you.
>If you disagree with the conditions, then don't use their IP
There is no such thing as IP. The right of ownership comes from productive labour. If I create a copy of something the only labour involved is mine. That the original creator might disagree with my act is as irrelevant as if you'd disagree with me quoting you.
A web service is productive labour by the people who keep the program running and up to date. Same with software support or being hired to write a specific program.
>People who produce IP for a living want to be compensated for their work.
I could staple pebbles all day long and want to be compensated for my work, too. If you're not comfortable with investing a lot of work in something that might bring no return don't do it. These people are not creating things on a contract basis, they are creating things in the hope people will give them money in exchange for a copy. When I am buying a book I don't do this merely to acquire ownership of the physical aspect of the copy but also to sponsor the author (though with unknown authors it is obviously only the former)
As for your comments about the link in >>25:
The "Statute of Anne" is a direct outgrowth of the "Statute of Monopolies". What more are patents and copyright than a state-sponsored monopoly on an an idea?
But of course "property" does sound a whole lot better than "privilege".
>Oh yes, and today's IP production is clearly the same as it was centuries ago!
Fundamentally, yes. The only difference is that today a whole industry is founded its buisness model on the idea of "IP" and the artificial scarcity it brings. Them bitching about copying is the same as buggy whip manufacturers complaining about automobiles.
> Since you've made up your mind, there would be no point in further debating the matter with you.
Oh, really (philosophers will get a kick out of that)? Or is it that you don't have a valid reply?
So, why don't you agree with this:
> They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
Or do you?
>>34
Of course people do, but:
Do you notice something? All of the above took millions to produce, or more. That's right, these things you enjoy for "free" wouldn't be possible if there were no capital to pay them!
If people only made these things for love, there'd be a lot less of it (people need to eat, so they'll usually work on something else), and the quality will probably be lower (people need to eat, so they'll usually work on something else). Imagine if everyone were still scratching out a living on farms.
> The right of ownership comes from productive labour.
So, writing software, making a film, or researching the next "big thing" isn't productive?
Okay, let's pretend that it isn't. How do you intend for these things to be made? Take a look at that list in >>38 and point out to me how it should be done.
> These people are not creating things on a contract basis
Quite a few buildings are also created with the prospect of selling. Since there's no contract, people should them for free.
That's a red herring. There are conditions when people buy these things. Then they break them. This is why we're seeing IP holders resorting to DRM and harsher legislation.
> Fundamentally, yes.
Oh, I like that. Sweeping all the issue out with one statement.
Fundamentally, a mouse and an elephant are also both mammals. So is a worm and a tiger. Please treat them equally.
> A worm and a tiger are both creatures in family Eukarya.
>>37 Why do you believe in this "moral right"?
Let's get this straight once and for all. Which of the following do you agree with:
1) Authors should be able to restrict people from copying their work because society as a whole will suffer otherwise.
2) Authors have a moral right to restrict people from copying their work.
In >>38 you seem to argue that society will suffer without copyrights, indicating an agreement with Statement One. But >>22 specifically asked you about that, and you denied it -- in >>31 you stated an agreement with Statement Two. So which one is it:
1) Authors should be able to restrict people from copying their work because society as a whole will suffer otherwise.
2) Authors have a moral right to restrict people from copying their work.
This is not multiple choice. Until you pick one and stick to it, you are just putting out noise.
* How many fan-made films do you see that rival Lord of the Rings? Or even Joe's Shitty Summer Film?Alright, so we have copyright for films. Makes sense, films need a lot of effort.
* How many independent games do you see that rival the glitz of modern games?Glitz sucks. I would happily do away with copyright in that area; we'd still have IF and Cave Story.
* How about OSX? Linux you say? Linux has zero polish. Or compare Photoshop with Gimp.Polish can head on back to Poland.
* How about giant magnetoresistive heads? Or copper on silicon? I'll bet if nobody was paying scientists we'd be way ahead now!You can't prove that science requires copyright. On the other hand, I can prove it doesn't: Einstein wasn't working for Nuclear Corp. when he came up with general relativity, and most professors work at universities anyway.
> Glitz sucks. I would happily do away with copyright in that area; we'd still have IF and Cave Story.
What a predictable reply. Unfortunately, the market clearly indicates that the majority want otherwise. I'd be happy if everyone was producing SNES-grade games, but people want UT2k4.
> Polish can head on back to Poland.
What a brilliant reply. Very compelling.
> You can't prove that science requires copyright.
Science doesn't use copyright, it uses patents. I shouldn't have mixed the two, but since we're debating IP, this is also an issue to be considered.
Let me ask you something: do you work in the science field? Have you ever done any research? Do you know just how expensive some of the equipment and other supplies are? This isn't a century ago, some of the stuff we need costs a fortune. Who is going to pay for it?
Answer a: The government. Okay, that's fine by me.
Answer b: Universities. Okay, but there's only so many of them.
Answer c: Private industry. Fat chance. Even with patents, how many private players are investing significant R&D?
> Until you pick one and stick to it, you are just putting out noise.
Perhaps I should not have denied the benefit to society. After some reflection, I believe that too. Of course, finding a balance is a difficult prospect. Some protection will increase the production of what falls under IP, which benefits all of us, but too much will hurt society.
So, where does the maxima lie? No, I don't know, but the huge amount of piracy on the Internet probably isn't it. Short term benefit, long-term detriment.
As for the moral right: I like to believe in reciprocity. We only function as a society if we work together. Now, if a person invests some effort into making something, and I don't compensate them, doesn't that harm them? They've spent the time to make it, but they receive nothing in return for the effort.
If nobody uses the fruits of their labour, fair enough, that's too bad. It was a miscalculation. But what if people do use it? They are deriving benefit from that person's efforts, yet the person has gained nothing in return. Said person needs to live off something in a capitalist society. People aren't giving them the necessities of life for free.
Now, if that person invests the effort, and releases it OSS or freeware, then the person never expected to derive benefit, other than the approval of his or her peers. They will have taken that into account, and budgeted their time accordingly. They'll have another line of work, or some other means of supporting themself. Maybe they'll go the support route.
If the person did it with the expectation of being paid, but nobody does even though benefitting from the work, how is that just? Imagine yourself in that person's shoes: you see people using everything you've spent month or years working on, yet despite your request they pay you for your work, nobody does.
Now, I've told you why I believe what I do. You tell me what's wrong with this:
> They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
> I never said it was, nor did I imply it. I'm arguing reality: we live in a capitalist-based system, and therefore we must work within that framework.
At the very least, you are implying that the capitalist system is absolute and inescapable. Why is that?
> Let's all start stealing from the store. It's obviously an arbitrary choice of ethics.
It is. It is also much easier to justify that one by noting that you are actually depriving someone of something they used to have before you stole from them.
And yet it's not absolute. For a recent example, what about the big brouhaha over looting in New Orleans? Most people agree that it's OK to break into a store and steal what you need to survive.
> They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
Is this an absolute moral right, or is it justfied through other principles?
>So, writing software, making a film, or researching the next "big thing" isn't productive?
Oh, it is, in a way. But you are once again missing the point. As soon as I have the product in question in my hands (and as long as I didnt acquire it by hitting the producers on the head with a blunt object and running away with their proofs/prototype/gold-disc), any future copies I make are the product of my labour.
Re:>>38
>That's right, these things you enjoy for "free" wouldn't be possible if there were no capital to pay them!
Do I smell a package deal fallacy?
>Quite a few buildings are also created with the prospect of selling...
Funny you should be talking about Red Herrings. I only said: if you are not comfortable with the risk, don't do it.
And next you are representing a strawman. Nobody has a right to get the house for free. But the builders have no right either to hinder other people to build a 1:1 copy of the house.
Conditions:
These are usually implicit and, more importantly, moot as soon as ownership is transfered to me. You can decline to deal with me again but you do not have power over something I own now.
Lastly, a little reality check here: are you in compliance with even the majority of EULAs of the software you own? And you better not be watching anime fansubs, rip copyprotected CDs, download mp3s of the net, or pirate the copyrighted works of starving japanese artist on shady imageboards either. And please, none of that "fair use" crap. After all, property is property, right?
>>40
As you brought it up, perhaps you would care to elaborate what the big difference is.
And a mouse and a tiger are close enough. Rats and humans are close enough. They function the same way. You are betraying an obsession with appearance and disregard for the inner workings.
And I straight missed that gem:
>>45
>Some protection will increase the production of what falls under IP, which benefits all of us, but too much will hurt society.
Translation: "We need just enough protection to deliver my sinful brethren from temptation, but not enough to be inconvinient to me."
>I like to believe in reciprocity[...] But what if people do use it? They are deriving benefit from that person's efforts, yet the person has gained nothing in return.
You would be the first person I've met having qualms about lending a book/DVD/CD from somebody (yes that includes libraries, those havens of piracy).
So the person has gained nothing. But what have they lost?
> the person did it with the expectation of being paid, but nobody does even though benefitting from the work, how is that just?
It isn't. And social workers aren't earning as much as Fortune 500 CEOs either. But thinking "IP" will solve this problem is as naive as thinking outlawing guns will lessen violence.
And the person's expectation has nothing to do with it. An aspiring author can quit his job, sell his house, and spend the next few years pouring his heart into his novel, being left without a single cent and relying on his novel's sales. If he can't write, no appeal to pity will help him.
Why is it an acceptable miscalculation if nobody uses something, but an inacceptable one if nobody pays for it?
>Now, I've told you why I believe what I do. You tell me what's wrong with this:
>They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.
The error is: information exists independant of performance, copies are not the result of the author's labour (are you already sick hearing this?). But I know what you're getting at and so I ask you: can you honestly say you are paying the authors for the "results of their labour" that you use? And not only if it will not inconvenience you?
> Imagine yourself in that person's shoes: you see people using everything you've spent months or years working on, yet despite your request they pay you for your work, nobody does.
A "request" is not the same as a "gun-to-your-head order", which is what copyright law is. I have paid for exactly one piece of software in the past three years, one that was and is available legally for free. Did I subvert capitalism? Barely. I liked what the project was doing and wanted to support it, and, besides, having the CD was more convenient anyway.
> You tell me what's wrong with this:
People have a moral right to share. Period. And "creators" aren't some special people with a special right that trumps that one. By all means, make narrow exceptions to the right to copy when the benefits to society outweigh the costs. With copyright, that isn't true at all. The benefits shrink and the costs rise every day.
> Finding a balance is a difficult prospect.
Finding a balance is wrong. When you have copyright you're cutting into basic freedoms. You damn well better justify that.
People shirk copyright law because when they can't make a copy of something they purchased and give it to a friend, that's retarded and totally incongruous with free society, and they know it.
> If you disagree with the conditions, then don't use their IP.
I agree entirely. Also, companies should be able to put whatever they want in their employment contracts, such as "You agree not to make any contributions to a non-company-approved political campaign." And there should be no minimum wage. If you disagree with the conditions, then don't take the job.
> Unfortunately, the market clearly indicates that the majority want otherwise.
Okay, then, that market can have voluntary copyright. Now that most media are digital we can simply use DRM for products that need it and do away with copyright.
> What a brilliant reply. Very compelling.
I wasn't expecting to convince you, I was just making the case that getting rid of copyright for most things would be fine in my world. I am not a lobbyist so I don't expect any changes to be made.
This has gotten out of hand. I'll try to keep it short (good luck!).
> At the very least, you are implying that the capitalist system is absolute and inescapable. Why is that?
If you live in a capitalist system, you play by its rules. We can all discuss what it might be like in a different economic system, but that's of little interest to me. What do you plan to do, cause a revolution in all Western societies? Move to Cuba? Spend the rest of your life cozying up with politicians in a likely to be futile attempt to change the system?
> big brouhaha over looting in New Orleans?
I agree, but that's irrelevant here. How many people copy IP because their lives depend on it? Other than a few exceptional circumstances, like the violations of patents to produce generic drugs, I can't think of any.
Copying a song will save your life? That movie will make major changes for the better? That software is the difference between rags and riches?
> any future copies I make are the product of my labour.
So, if someone buys just one copy, and makes unlimited copies of it for everyone else, that's fine? Why would any commercial venture bother producing IP anymore? What about the person who spent months making it, just so you could so callously spend 30 seconds copying those months of effort?
> Translation: "We need just enough protection to deliver my sinful brethren from temptation, but not enough to be inconvinient to me."
Don't be a complete dolt. The reason is that some protection gives incentive to private interests to invest money into the development of ideas, because they may get a return. Too much protection will hurt society because the control of information isn't desirable. Take a look at the repercussions of the constant extensions of copyrights in the US, or the effects of patents in the software world.
Don't put words in my mouth if you're too dense to understand the obvious interpretation.
> So the person has gained nothing. But what have they lost?
The time, effort, and money they spent making it. These things don't magically materialize into reality.
> But thinking "IP" will solve this problem
Why wouldn't it? It seems to work well enough thus far. IBM's profits from all those patents certainly are a huge disincentive to them to continue investing in R&D. Adobe is clearly investing money in their suite because nobody is paying for it.
> information exists independant of performance
No, it doesn't. The performance produces the information. You can copy it all you like, but realize that these performances are both expensive and take months or years to execute. This isn't just some person performing on the corner.
Adobe Photoshop took a decade and dozens of developers to get where it is now. If you're benefitting from that massive effort, why shouldn't you compensate them for it?
You could just form a massive pool of money to buy that first copy. Oh, wait, maybe the current system works a bit like that, just with greater spread...
> A "request" is not the same as a "gun-to-your-head order", which is what copyright law is.
Doesn't justice in general have to do with "requests"? Here, I request you don't con me either, but if you do, obviously you're beyond the law.
> People have a moral right to share. Period.
Sounds good. Since you're so good at questioning morals, how about telling me why this is so?
Nor is this limited sharing. If it was limited, I doubt there'd be a problem. But some torrents out there are huge. Usenet is wholescale piracy. Then these copies are distributed elsewhere again. By a hoard of complete strangers.
> And "creators" aren't some special people with a special right that trumps that one.
Why not? If the constant sharing causes them to stop producing, how does that benefit anyone?
> When you have copyright you're cutting into basic freedoms. You damn well better justify that.
I've justified it repeatedly in this thread. Are you reading what I'm writing, or just skimming for easy angles of attack?
I suppose capitalism is cutting into basic freedoms too. Let's just toss out the system and head for Communist utopia right now.
> If you disagree with the conditions, then don't take the job.
Well, that's the way it works, isn't it? The reasons we have minimum wage and other limitations is to benefit society at large. Copyright does that too, which is why it exists. Again, a lot of those movies, music, software, patents, etc, take a small fortune to produce. Who is going to pay?
To conclude, you seem to think I'm giving blanket approval of increasing powers invested into IP protection. No, I'm not, but just as I think too much is a bad thing, I think too little will hurt us too. No copyright at all? Pure idiocy in a capitalist system.
> If you live in a capitalist system, you play by its rules.
Why do you keep saying that? We don't live in a capitalist system - not one that is completely capitalist in every imaginable way. It differs from country to country, but no country is purely communist, capitalist or anything else. All of them are various mixtures of differing styles. It's not a binary choice. And we can pick and choose what parts should be handled how.
> Copying a song will save your life? That movie will make major changes for the better? That software is the difference between rags and riches?
That was never my point. I was merely pointing out that morals are never absolute, and it is silly to treat them as such.
You were trying to reductio ad absurdum my argument by comparing it to physical stealing (which could very well be argued not to be in any way relevant), and I pointed out that, yes, under certain circumstances, physically stealing is morally right. The implication being that under certain circumstances, breaking copyright might also be quite right and proper. The interesting detail here is when and how, not if.
> some torrents out there are huge. Usenet is wholescale piracy. Then these copies are distributed elsewhere again.
Indeed, millions of normal, everyday people copy, even though they're not supposed to. How do you propose stopping them without crossing over into authoritarian-land? S'pose maybe those millions provide a heuristic estimate of the validity of the moral right to share, versus your "moral right" to get paid for copies? By the way, how much worse do you expect the sharing to get when copyright is abolished?
> some torrents out there are huge. Usenet is wholescale piracy. [..]
> If the constant sharing causes them to stop producing,
Hmm. Doesn't seem like it is.
> Are you [..] just skimming for easy angles of attack?
"Kettle? It's pot on line one. Something about you being black."
> "Kettle? It's pot on line one. Something about you being black."
Cutesy pot-kettle-black lines are for Slashdotters. Please cut that out.
Thanks for advising me of that. I will avoid using any such lines in the future.
>>52
As you obviously can't be bothered to answer my questions I'll at least answer yours. (Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just skimming for easy angles of attack?)
>How many people copy IP because their lives depend on it?[..]
By your logic (and the logic of the pharma execs) nobody would develop these drugs in the first place if it wouldn't be for patents. So clearly the kid with AIDS, the woman hemorraging to death during childbirth, or the man with malaria have to pony up the money.
>The reason is that some protection gives incentive to private interests to invest money into the development of ideas, because they may get a return.
And all the money that was just made is promptley spent in litigation lawsuits and license fees. See als below under "dichotomy".
>Take a look at the repercussions of the constant extensions of copyrights in the US, or the effects of patents in the software world.
Well, "some protection gives incentive".
There is a saying about being just a bit pregnant...
>Why would any commercial venture bother producing IP anymore?
In order to make money? Parotting the false dichotomy "IP = money", "no IP = no money" doesn't make it any true.
>What about the person who spent months making it, just so you could so callously spend 30 seconds copying those months of effort?
I walk into a bookstore. There are thousands of books. What about all the persons who spent months making them, just so I could callously ignore those months of effort?
Same result for the authors: they currently get no money from me.
>Don't put words in my mouth if you're too dense to understand the obvious interpretation.
I understand the obvious interpretation just fine.
Of course everbody is against "piracy". But piracy, that means p2p-filesharing/CD-burning/whatever, you know, what criminals do. Of course piracy is not reading a book or watching a movie you didn't pay for, recording TV-shows, oh, and that copy of WinXP they got from a friend is of course excluded too, because, you know, it's expensive. And fansubs are acceptable too, because, you kow, they like totally don't understand japanese, and they're so gonna buy the DVDs if they are licensed. And that JPop CD? Well they sooooo would buy it, if those thiefs wouldn't charge criminally high prices.
Ad nauseam.
>The time, effort, and money they spent making it.
So a copy will cause them to have that time/effort/money to spend all over again?
>Adobe is clearly investing money in their suite because nobody is paying for it.
You don't say! You mean the suite that is availible all over the internet for free?! Astonishing!
>No, it doesn't.
ex·ist:
1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
I have a lot of books from dead authors. They are still here.
> The performance produces the information.[...]these performances are both expensive and take months or years to execute.
The "performance" in question is a singular act of discovery.
It does not have to be repeated in order to duplicate the information. If you are grateful to the "discoverer(s)" and/or want them to to do more along that lines by all means give them a donation. But there is no obligation to do so whatsoever.
>You could just form a massive pool of money to buy that first copy.
Or contracting them to write it in the first place. See my other post.
>Oh, wait, maybe the current system works a bit like that, just with greater spread...
Only that they still claim control over what I can do with my copy. I seem to recall something about a worm and a tiger...
>I suppose capitalism is cutting into basic freedoms too.
Where is the money you owe me for breathing the oxygen that was produced by the trees on my property.
>The reasons we have minimum wage and other limitations is to benefit society at large
The reason we have these is that people were fighting for them. Being shot, burned, and beaten to death, while striking for minimum wage and an eight hour day. Until the factory owners privileges were cut back slightly.
>Copyright does that too, which is why it exists.
"Life of the author plus 70 years".
Cui bono?
>[...]just as I think too much is a bad thing, I think too little will hurt us too.
What distinguishes a book that was bought second hand or lent from a library from one downloaded from the internet? No benefit to the author from the the three persons who aquired a copy, yet, I assume, you want the downloader to be punished by law. Only based on your "feel good" ideas about "too much" and "too little".
You can't be serious, >>57. Where do you dig up some of these arguments?
I'm a fool.
Despite my better judgement, I'll answer this anyway.
> By your logic (and the logic of the pharma execs) nobody would develop these drugs in the first place if it wouldn't be for patents.
Oh, they would, just a lot slower. Again, all the equipment, scientists, and FDA approval costs a small fortune. If private industry leaves, then only universities and government funding will provide us with medicine.
> And all the money that was just made is promptley spent in litigation lawsuits and license fees.
Don't be stupid. Litigation is not the norm.
> There is a saying about being just a bit pregnant...
The world isn't black or white. Some degree of police control benefits us all too, but too much is a bad thing.
> In order to make money?
Yes, in order to make money. All that research that IBM does and licenses out, they do it for money. Same with Packeteer. Same with pharmaceuticals. Same with any industry. What motivation does a company have to invest into expensive R&D if their competitor will copy it next iteration? Why do you think so many US companies are now cutting their R&D budgets?
> So a copy will cause them to have that time/effort/money to spend all over again?
If you paid for it, they recoup some of their costs. If they made enough, then it was worth their while. If not, they'll go bankrupt and leave the industry.
> You don't say! You mean the suite that is availible all over the internet for free?!
It's not available for free, now is it? Except that everyone has a copy anyway. How does that work?
> by all means give them a donation.
...right. How many people do that?
Obviously not enough to fund the making of movies or major pieces of software. Books and music might be able to make it, since their cost to produce is lower.
But donations really fail it. I've seen several promising OSS projects where the developer really was solidly fucked (as in, unemployed and sinking further into debt). They requested donations, yet guess how much they received?
Almost none. It's a typical bystander effect.
> Or contracting them to write it in the first place.
Like I mentioned in my prior post. But how many people do this?
They don't. They wait until the software is there, evaluate whether it's worth their money, and then buy it. Greater spread.
> Only that they still claim control over what I can do with my copy.
Why shouldn't they? That was a condition of purchase.
Again, if you just gave it to a friend, it wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what is happening.
> Where is the money you owe me for breathing the oxygen that was produced by the trees on my property.
How is that a response to my comment regarding capitalism?
> The reason we have these is that people were fighting for them.
In other words, it benefits society at large. So we're back where we started.
> "Life of the author plus 70 years".
Hardly a compelling argument for the elimination of copyright.
> What distinguishes a book that was bought second hand or lent from a library from one downloaded from the internet?
The one on the internet can be copied ad infinitum. That book in your hands? Only one person at a time can have it.
In case you hadn't noticed, photocopying sections of that book is illegal too.
> What motivation does a company have to invest into expensive R&D if their competitor will copy it next iteration?
What does that have to do with copyright? R&D isn't copyrightable. In the absence of patents or secrets-keeping, competitors can copy it anyway. But to answer your question, it gives them an advantage this iteration.
> Obviously not enough [people donate] to fund the making of [..] major pieces of software.
Tell that to Apache, FreeBSD, GIMP, GNOME, GNU, KDE, Linux, MediaWiki, Mozilla, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSSH, Perl, Python, Ruby, Vorbis, and X, just to name a few.
"Promising" open source projects are a dime a dozen, most of them vaporware started by someone who can't code. Someone who doesn't donate to a vaporware developer is a realist -- not a heartless bystander. When it works and is good, then the donations start coming in.
> >Only that they still claim control over what I do with my copy.
> Why shouldn't they?
Do you have the attention span of a goldfish? The point is that this shows your "It's like contracting them to develop it, but with greater spread" argument to be invalid. The contractee would get rights to the result.
> The one on the internet can be copied ad infinitum.
What will you say when foldable displays hit the market and it's a standard feature of all books that they can be copied? It'll only make sense then for libraries to offer downloadable copies of books -- saves money and makes knowledge available more effectively. Or are libraries evil in your opinion?
> In case you hadn't noticed, photocopying sections of that book is illegal too.
Funny. There's a photocopier right up at the front of my library, and nobody has ever called me a pirate for using it.
>Oh, they would, just a lot slower.[...]If private industry leaves,[...]
Product patents on drugs in most european states were introduced only about 30 years ago. The pharmaceutical industry seemed to do just fine the 100 years before that.
>Litigation is not the norm.
No, but license fees are. Every industry I know of was kickstarted in an IP free enviroment. Patents were ever only introduced/enforced later because they would smother growth and competition. As you were droning about capitalism, you might want to take look at the opinion of, lets say, Hayek about IP.
>The world isn't black or white
Oh, so one can be a bit pregnant?
You were the one bitching about software patents. Show me a real world example of what you would consider sane "IP" law and then we can go on from there.
>[...]recoup some of their costs[...]
Your original answer was that a copy would make them lose time/effort/money, not that they miscalculated how many people would pay for it.
>Except that everyone has a copy anyway.
And Adobe is still afloat. How does that work?
>How many people do that?[..]Obviously not enough to fund the making of movies or major pieces of software.
A "donation" can take many forms. Buying a copy from the author, for example. Something you do even if you don't have to. Further see >>60. There are whole operating systems that are developed and distributed free of charge.
>Why shouldn't they? That was a condition of purchase.
See >>60. And I really would like to hear what you think about software EULAs.
>How is that a response to my comment regarding capitalism?
You don't consider breathing a fundamental right? In a world where everything is private property, where would you get your oxygen from? (Another hint: see it in the spirit of your answer to >>49)
>Hardly a compelling argument for the elimination of copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
You were arguing copyright is here because it benefits society, remember?
>That book in your hands? Only one person at a time can have it.
But an unlimited number of persons can draw benefit from it without compensating the author. And in the case of a second hand sale somebody is even making money from the author's work.
Person reads hardcopy, author sees no money. Person reads electronic copy, author sees money. The first one is ok with you, the second one not. Why? (If your answer should boil down to "scale", think twice about that)
>>61
"Person reads electronic copy, author sees no money."
fixed
A relevant article:
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html