Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Financial Times on Apple/Real/DMCA Morass

Posted by pudge on from the all-your-music-are-belong-to-us dept.

drpickett writes "The Financial Times are carrying an editorial by James Boyle concerning the nascent battle between Apple and Real. Good comments on the DMCA issues. Article sort of portrays Apple as a bunch of close-system types who got the 5% market share that they deserve for shunning interoperability. No mention is made of Real as the poster child for closed formats and cheap spyware tactics." And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.

4 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Pudge?! by krel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.

    Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?
    --
    karma: ouch!
    1. Re:Pudge?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

      It's worse than unfair. It's the sort of gross, intentional mischaracterization that makes Slashdot look to outsiders like a pack of rabid dogs.

      I fully understand why folks get all up in arms about DRM. There are certainly issues of monopoly, consumer protection, fair use, and fair trade to deal with. But know this: You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like. In fact, the creator/owner of a work has a constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The sooner we all grok that, the sooner we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

      If I write a song, I have every right to charge $100 for giving you the right to listen to it. Indeed, I have every right to charge you $100 for the right to listen to it just once! You have exactly the same rights regarding any song you might create. We each also have the right to protect our own works against copyright infringement. Importantly, protecting our own works (via commercial license, GPL, Doberman Pinscher, or electric fence) does not destroy a right or freedom that anyone else enjoyed.

      This is an important thing for the FOSS community to understand deeply, because we generally release stuff under the GPL or similar license, and we fully expect people to abide by that license. The GPL's teeth come from our legal IP infrastructure. To reject the notion of the legitimacy of intellectual property is to reject the foundation of the GPL.

      Apple and Real are fighting because Real has just peed in Apple's very nice, private, swimming pool.

    2. Re:Pudge?! by patheticloser · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, we do have fair use rights that pertain to songs you might create, even if you'd like to charge us $100 for one listening (hypothetically, of course). The battleground is where the lines are drawn and where your copyright ends and my fair use rights begin.

      For example, if you charge me $100 to listen to your song once, but then I parody your song, that is my fair use right, and you should not be able to drag me to court to use your song in this way without payment.

      As far as Apple pissing on Real, let's not forget that iTunes and iPod can play non-DRM content like mp3, so it is disingenuous for Real to complain too loudly that Apple's system is closed.

    3. Re:Pudge?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like. In fact, the creator/owner of a work has a constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The sooner we all grok that, the sooner we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

      Sorry, but it is you who lacks understanding.

      Firstly, you don't have a constitutional right to do a lot of things that you have the right to do. Certain rights are protected, but it isn't an exaustive list of what you are allowed to do - it's a list of things the government is not allowed to do. The Consitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it recognises some as being fundamental to freedom and protects them accordingly.

      Secondly, you absolutely do have the right to use a work that somebody else holds the copyrights to however you want. It is copying that is forbidden. In other words, only the copyright holder has the right to copy.

      Thirdly, you lump creators, owners and copyright holders in as the same thing. They are not. If I buy music, I am the owner and I can use it however I want. It is my property. That doesn't mean I have the right to duplicate it, and it doesn't mean I am the copyright holder. Also, in music terms, the copyright holder is almost never the person that created the work.

      To reject the notion of the legitimacy of intellectual property is to reject the foundation of the GPL.

      Just because you fundamentally disagree with DRM does not mean that you fundamentally disagree with copyright.