Slashdot Mirror

Copyright there is at least partically to do with preventing other people's legitimate efforts/research/et al being claimed as someone else's.

No, that's honesty you're thinking of. Copyright prevents all copying, properly accredited or not (hence the `fair use' exceptions). See ipnot (I just read it myself)

it's not surprising that with the force of guns the the government behind them, proprietary software could "beat out" free software.

by letting the Darwinian model flourish, i hope you don't mean that murder is ok.
__

IP is government-run extortion system supported by big-businesses like microsoft and disney.
IP is the next war on drugs.
IP is obsolete.

ps. i am not a script kiddie.

pps: see ipnot for justification of the above position.
__

Open source has a chance to change the business structure, not merely be coopted by it. This is the point on which ESR and RMS are 180 degrees apart.

What the GPL ensures is that a business using free software is contributing back to the community. Other licenses turn the communal capital of open source into financial capital without taking any care to benefit the community. David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World" explains this process of turning social economies into corporate ones, and the effect this has on the deterioration of the social structure and environment. Free software is merely an application of this principle, albeit one that is very close to my heart.

Brett, I agree with your assessment, but I think it's worth trying to persuade corporations that the GPL presents a viable economic model. We seem too stuck in the trap of thinking that selling a software product is the only way to make money.

Wes

Quote from Rutherford B. Hayes --

the capitalist system is not the enemy. copyright is the enemy. in fact these two positions have the same foundation: personal freedom & non-intiation of force. see ipnot.
__

the reason why this superior free market approach is more common in europe and other countries is because they also tend to believe less in copyrights. copyrights are pure socialist intervention, it is basically the government placing restrictions on what U can copy to change the natural market distribution of a given work.

they call it intellectual "property" rights, but in the real world property rights derive from reality, not from federal wet dreams. see ip not page

umm, copyrights are based off a presumption that granting creators a monopoly on copying will encourage more people to create usefull works and therefore benefit society. That monopoly is often treated, and refered to as if it were a right, like property rights, freedom of speech, etc.. , but it isn't. copying really harms noone unless you fradulently claim you created somthing when you didn't. also, copyrights in practice tend to lead more to mnopolies like microsoft and RIAA, rather than true beneficial creation. you might want to check out IP not for some more arguments and links if you haven't already.

one of the reasons I created my IP Not web page, was because I foresaw problems like this coming a long time ago. I know it's a charged issue, but I hope people would just read it and think about it. Seriously, I wish people would just consider that the belief in patents and copyrights is founded on a faulty foundation - that perhaps they're not what they're cracked up to be !

this is just more proof that intellectual property and the info-age are on a collision course.
check out the page at ip not

don't property rights exist for reasons other than "the government created them".. What about the IP Not homepage. Patents are really just government backed monopolies - the're not free-market at all.

Funny, I have yet to see anything of substance in your side of the argument. Just lots of ranting about greedy megacorps. Take your rose-colored glasses off. Maybe you'll see how easy it is for dishonest people to take advantage of honest people when there's nothing to back up the claims of the honest people. Without IP law, it's even easier for the rich and powerful to take advantage of the less fortunate, but more creative. Groups like ipnot.org operate on the false assumption that all people are inherently honest. However, when your assumptions fail to hold up, so to does your model fail.

it's pathetic, but it's the natural result of intellectual property law. there is a better way: ipnot
__

but IP law is not inherently evil in anyway.

copyright is the source of the next war on drugs.

information is free, the only question is, are you?
__