Slashdot Mirror
Tracking GPL Violators
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week, open source developer Harald Welte made headlines when he personally served warning letters to 13 technology companies for alleged GPL violations. Now in a ZDNet interview, Welte explains the challenges behind tracking down these violators and how he persuades them to comply."
Now we can all sleep with a conscience, knowing that we've reasoned ourselves around how theft of music/software copyright is "okay" because it "broadens its access", but theft of GPL works is not okay because it "restricts its access".
Superficially, that looks like a great argument. However, you forgot something important: fundamental rights of freedom and choice, because in both cases, the theft is ignoring the original choice and intentions of the copyright holder. You simply optioned for some so called "public good" at the expense of the creative individual, but really, your "public good" is just your own justification to suggest that music/software theft is acceptable.
Really: if you don't like copyright restrictions on works, choose alternatives, don't steal and then try to use a "robin hood" style argument to justify "public good". If you were stealing essential foodstuffs from wealthy to feed the poor, I could understand. However, music/software are not essential foodstuffs, and even if they were, there are plenty of free/share versions you can use without resorting to theft.
Bluntly: you don't need to steal music/software any more: there are a lot of free/share alternatives, and, the more you use those alternatives, the greater the critical mass, and the more they will grow and expand.
Anyone who takes sacks of pebbles from the mountain and says "these are now mine" is a simple rogue, legalised or not, and we all know it.
There are some "pebbles" that simply would not be added to your metaphorical mountain if their creators/innovators didn't have some expectation of being able to earn a living while producing them. Most creative types don't say to themselves, "I'm about to invest a couple-plus years of my life writing Cryptonomicon... but I'd better keep sucking up to my boss at the IHOP because my cultural history tells me I shouldn't expect a paycheck from book royalties, ever."
There is a contradiction in your message. People create under a legal framework upon which they base their expectations of interaction with other people. If they want to GPL their work, great. That defines a certain expected course of events and options. If they want to limit the distribution of their years of work to those people that are willing pay for entertainment, and thus stop waiting tables at IHOP (I know, Neal did not wait tables at IHOP), then that choice is also well supported under law. The problem we have is that people confuse the technical ability to avoid paying for someone's labor of years with the right to do so. Those authors/artists/developers that do indeed want a broader audience for their work do not necessarily mean that they want that to happen without expecting that audience to realize that the work has value, and to pay for it.
Your cultural stack of pebbles wouldn't exist without the daily work of creative people who continually add to it and also need to pay the rent. Culture is not some fixed pie to be divided up for free. It's the result of people's daily work, creativity, and commerce, and it thrives best when the most creative people available know that they can make a living doing what they do best. We all benefit, and paying an artist a few cents for their song is just fine. If you don't like that approach, then that means you don't like the artist for having made the choice to profit from their labors. And if you have any intellectual honesty, you'll decide you don't want to hear that artist's music anyway (since you can't stand the idea of them having decided to earn a living by selling, rather than giving away, their life's work).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You (and the couple of others that responded to me) are not listening either.
You moved onto the philosophical debate about "property" and "ownership" and whether intellectual property and music/software does have these properties. This is a good debate to have.
However, if you pay attention: we are in a free society where not everyone agrees to your view about property. The IP system, and copyright, allows individuals to make the choice either way. It's obvious that some other people have chosen to protect their property, and some have given it away (GPL). The most important thing for you is to respect their choice, not trample all over their choice and their rights to satisfy your own view of how things should work.
Back to the OP: social arguments about whether something should be free or not are good arguments: but they come before the point at which someone decides to apply GPL or other rights restrictions. Once they do decide to apply their choice of licensing, you should, as a mature and civil person, accept their choice. Otherwise, quite simply, you (or a large enterprise) are trampling over those rights for your (or the enterprise) benefit, against the wishes of the licensor.