Slashdot Mirror

I dislike the GPLv3, but I use GPLv2 for everything I write myself. I know there aren't many out there like me, but if there are enough, I think it might cause yet another regrettable split. Are the benefits of the GPLv3 over v2 (which seem very minimal if existant at all) worth the downsides? Only time will tell.

Dlugar

It doesn't just add complexity, it adds restrictions that I think can semi-reasonably be considered to abridge some of those freedoms.

Yeah, there's at least a few more.

I think there are still some (at least one--me) who agree with Stallman's original "four freedoms", but believe the GPLv2 is sufficient for protecting those freedoms, and the GPLv3 adds too much complexity to be worth it. I personally contribute to GPLv2 projects (and write my own), but I will not contribute to GPLv3 projects. I don't know if I'm the only one in the world--certainly on Slashdot I appear to be the minority--but I do think there are others.

1. That having something under copyright keeps it away from society.

This one I find rather funny - there are abolitionists out there who really think that authors sit around creating work under copyright, and then cackle as they put them in a box and never let anybody see them.

This seems like a straw man to me. Are there really abolitionists who really think this?

When abolitionists say "having something under copyright keeps it away from society," I think they typically mean that the copyright reduces the number of copies that would otherwise be available for people to enjoy, as well as reducing the number (and probably quality) of derivative works. Both of these are costs to society due to copyright. The size of these costs and whether or not the costs are worth it are, of course, debatable, but I haven't seen anybody question the idea itself.

2. That you can copyright an idea.

The sad thing is that while the first one at least is a take on a speculative issue (and, I will concede, possibly not a failure on the reading comprehension level), this one is disproven just by reading the SUMMARY of the law.

I'm not quite sure what the OP wrote that you are responding to here, but it's true that, for example, no one can write a story that takes place in a Star Trek universe due to copyright restrictions. Derivative works cover at least part of what a layman would term as "copyrighting an idea". But again, I'm not quite sure what the OP wrote that you're responding to.

3. That copyright is more artificial than any other right.

This one requires people to have little or no concept of history. Or current events. The people who claim that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are natural rights seem to be missing the fact that at least half of the world's population lives in places without those rights.

Here I have little sympathy for your case. While it's true that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are artificial rights, they're certainly not "just as artificial as copyright". Copyright is something that we can (and should) gladly take away, limit, or extend as it benefits society as a whole. It's more along the lines with "the right to health care" than it is "the right to life" or "the right to free speech".

5. That because an abusive organization says copyright law is X, it must be X. ... Everybody knows that the RIAA is dishonest - so what does it make the abolitionists who actually take the RIAA at its word about what copyright is?

I haven't seen anything the RIAA has said about copyright that isn't at least somewhat supported by the law. That doesn't mean it's right, of course, but it does mean that abusive organizations have tremendous amounts of control over what the law is.

6. That copyright guarantees an income (and that all an author has to do is write one book and s/he's set for life).

I'm right with you on this one. I don't see this one very often, but it is indeed an extreme fantasy.

7. That abolishing copyright will get rid of all the barriers to pushing the culture forward.

Ditto here.

The short answer to this is as follows: the most important aspect of copyright law is in regards to protecting the work during the submission process to a publisher and prior to publication. It's copyright law that prevents a publisher from looking at a work, telling an author "no thanks," adding a bunch of fluffy bunnies to it, and publishing it under another name. Or accepting the book and removing all the c

It's more pernicious than that. It reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy: we don't buy things anymore, we "consume content", and they "own content". Ownership is a social convention: in theory, we more or less agree what constitutes "property". Now they are trying to change the rules, claiming they own all the things we use, and we pay them whatever they deem fit. So we become intellectual sharecroppers: we own nothing and owe everything.

Now get working on that.

With such an enjoyable and revolutionary experience within our grasp, we should not minimize the role that DRM can and should play in enabling the transition to electronic content distribution. Without reasonable, consistent and transparent DRM we will only delay the availability of premium content in the home. As an industry, we should not let that happen.

Here's my screenshot as well:

http://trantor.indessed.com/screenshot.png

The only thing extraneous I can see is the status bar at the bottom, which is (I believe) off by default in Opera 9, although I prefer it. What more do you want?!

Dlugar