By definition, Free software isn't owned. Information should be as free as sunlight.
"everyone takes part in the production process"
Free enterprise hard at work. However, this time, the profits are far more valuble than mere money.
"everyone reaps the benefits of the production process"
This is software we're talking about here. How could it be any other way? Everyone should reap the benefits of a non-scarce resource.
"I'd say we're pretty damn close to Marxism."
I agree with that. A ruling elite in their boardrooms and commitees deciding the fate of all us lowly programmers... some idealistic heros trying to stir us to resist... as the executives and lawyers squeeze their iron fists around us... when comes the famous flip-flop?
Funny you should bring up the GPL to defend IP - I don't think the GPL is right, either. I would go along with the GPL out of politeness, and because I think the source should be free, not because I have to. I wouldn't violate the GPL, but I don't think it should be enforceable.
The GPL does two things I don't like:
1. The GPL tries to spread, forcing its way into other programs. I think viral is a bad word for that, since it is rather offensive to people who like the GPL, but the GPL is a... very reproductive license. This is not in and of itself bad, but it is worrisome.
2. The GPL presumes authors have the right to control what other people do with their creations. RMS talks about free software, but then he said "...if we let them use the code in proprietary software products." in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
If GPL'd software is so free, why do the users of the GPL think they have the right to not let others use their code in whatever way they want?
This is why I prefer BSD-style or public domain "licenses." I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they can do with my code. This is why, though I admire RMS's motives, I disagree with the GPL, and with IP.
"Why should I spend a bunch of time and energy creating something that isn't going to put money in my pocket or otherwise benefit me?"
But there is a way it otherwise benefits you. There is now a program where there was not. You made it, you can change or customize it in any way you want, and you can do anything you want with it without having to sign your firstborn child away in some EULA. Of course, there is also the respect and admiration of your peers, and another item you can put on your resume. Even if that's not enough benefit for you, it is for me.
"So don't attack IP, because commercial apps are the only way that Linux is going to make it out of the server room."
I fundamentally disagree with you here. All I can say is that I, a guy in my dorm across the hall, and my dad all use Linux on our desktop boxes. My dad has a windows box, but rarely uses it. Kevin and I don't have windows, and have no interest in it. Our desktops work fine with only Linux. No, we aren't the average end user, but I don't mind. It's good enough for me. Way better than Windows, IMHO.
"IP when applied correctly is a benefit to society."
I won't argue with you here, but I don't understand. How can you correctly apply IP without it being a form of content control?
"Blaming IP for all the crap that's been going on with the DMCA, Napster, etc. etc. is exactly like blaming a gun when someone is killed."
Yes, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and Amazon are certainly fully to blame for what they did. However, I also disagree with IP because I think it is a bad set of laws. I don't see how IP can exist without content control, and I think content control is evil.
"...not the principle of IP. If it weren't for it, there would be no GPL."
If there was no IP and no GPL, I would not miss either. Yes, I am sure there would be problems, but they would be our own problems, not injustices enforced upon us by big government and big business.
"I do acknowledge the MPAA's goals here - they are entitled to cash for movies."
Small nit - the MPAA is entitled to however much their customers are willing to pay. The marketplace does not reward effort, just results, and fair price is determined by the suppliers and consumers together. In short, the MPAA cannot just set their own price and expect to collect payment, unless they can convince their customers to play along. The MPAA's true owners are the moviegoing fans.
Will someone please explain to me why copyright and patent infringements are called theft? What has been stolen?
This is a serious question. I'm not looking for tired analogies to stealing a car, or borrowing a bike, because those analogies don't apply. Keeping in mind the fact that information can be and is naturally copied at will, what justification is there for calling copyrighted information or patented inventions "intellectual property" and calling infringements of IP law "theft"?
I'm talking to believers in copyrights and patents. I'm really trying to understand your point of view. Please don't brush this question off with overused quotations. Please write about what it means to you, and why you believe the way you do.
You don't own the right to do what the hell you like with them. "
Yes, I do. I do because that is fair use - to do anything I want with the cd and the music on it, short of distributing it to other people. That's protected by copyright law. Anything else is free game.
The bike analogy is misapplied. When I listen to a cd, I'm not borrowing anything from anybody. I'm using a copy. It would be like if Johnny asked Susie if he could take pictures of her bike and make a duplicate. Arguably, he wouldn't even have to ask, because building a duplicate of Susie's bike doesn't hurt Susie in any way.
Just a couple questions. Why is implementing or expanding on someone else's idea/invention called stealing? Why do some people think it is somehow wrong?
"What we find here is that people are deliberately trying to upset the applecart and punish these companies, and those who work for them, for doing what is natural, and trying to secure their futures."
The companies are sercuring their futures by destroying the futures of their competitors and open-source programming. Patents are inherently hostile.
"Why are they attacking the companies, when the companies have done nothing wrong?"
The companies in question have done plenty wrong. Nobody blames them for trying to secure their futures. These companies are laying minefields in legally uncharted waters. That is what they are being blamed for. This is not punishment. This is minesweeping.
"It is the patent system they should be attacking, and the government, through protest and through the ballot box."
Here I agree with you completely.
However, I don't see why anti-patent actions should be limited to the measures you suggest. The only legal way to fight the patent system within the patent system, is with prior art. If there was prior art, the company was wrong to apply for the patent, and the patent office was wrong to grant it.
I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree that the people working for the hostile companies should not be punished in any way. However, I don't see how this prior art competition is punishing those people. The offending patents are the target, not the people.
> Heinlein, on the other hand, takes a scientific concept, stretches it with a "what-if" approach, and then everybody has sex.
I thought that was Larry Niven.:)
Re: Asimov
One thing I really like about Card and Sagan, and I this is where Asimov, Silverberg, Tiptree, and others fall short... is their treatment of religion. A lot of SF preaches about how evil/bad/stupid religion is, and how genius atheists will save the day. That's boring and insulting. Card and Sagan talk about a wide variety of different religious beliefs, and they talk about them in such a way that nearly any strongly religious person will resonate with what they say.
I would say alternative is now mainstream.:) Now, those kinds of music that are alternative these days, like polka and gospel music...
Seriously, though - you're right, alternative is the biggest section, but near as I can tell, that just means that's the most popular thing right now, and it's no longer alternative.
As Contact pointed out, anyone within about 60 light years probably already knows we're here, and anyone within 30 years has had time to send a message back. Since they know exactly where we are, they could use laser for the message, and save on power costs.
We should be watching every star within 31 light years, and gradually widening our search.
> If you can show me one person who has not been able to pursue legitimate recording activites because of copy protection I will eat my words. Otherwise I stand by what I say.
My brother, who tried to hook up a DVD player to his stereo system, only to find out the picture was fizz-fuzz. He eventually found out that the problem was all VCRs produced after a certain date won't accept input from a DVD player, making it impossible to back up DVDs onto VCR tapes. That would have been a legitimate recording activity, and he couldn't do it because the movie industries decided to punish him for being able to become a criminal.
No, he would not have made copies for his friends, though I can't prove it to you. He's a stickler for staying legal, so though he was insulted, he swallowed his pride and did it their way.
> And people seem to think no-one gets hurt by these things.
> They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too.
Most record and computer companies depend on an artificial scarcity. They make the whole world poorer, just to allow a content-selfish company to survive. If the people working for those record and computer companies minded being thieves and pirates of our fair use rights, they would have quit long ago.
If you can show me how an ethical and upstanding person can work at Microsoft or Sony, I will eat my words. Otherwise I stand by what I say. I'm not saying they are bad people, I just can't understand why they would stay.
> They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too.
Yes, and I'm sure they will still be able to support their families, but working at another company.
> This is just my point. Why the hell shouldn't companies be allowed to protect their property?
Why shouldn't fans be allowed to time-shift and space-shift their favorite shows? I've been reverse-engineering clocks, motors, toy cars, electronics junk, and computers for nearly as long as I've been alive. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reverse-engineer Windows, or the lastest internet filtering software?
> Piracy increases the costs for people who aren't thieves.
"Piracy" is what the media companies are doing.
> If we remove the tools, we remove the crime, and the world is better off in the end.
What a horrifying thought! Should crowbars be illegal because they can be used for burglary? Should binoculars be illegal because they can be used by peeping toms and stalkers? Should syringes be illegal just because they can be used by druggies? If a tool has even *one* legitimate use, it is wrong to make the tool illegal. The US courts have at least ruled this way.
Some would say it is wrong to make tools illegal even if they have no legitimate uses. I can't say they're wrong or right, but it makes sense to punish the criminal, not the tool.
> Next thing the free software guys will be trying to tell me that I can't put a chain on my bike! I mean this is getting Communist in proportions - surely we've got past the belief in common ownership of property.
NO! NO! NO! Do you know what the content on a DVD is? It is a number. A number with many digits, but still a number. Are you seriously telling me that *numbers* can be owned? Bikes can be owned, but ideas, numbers, and words cannot.
I believe very strongly in free enterprise, and an individual's right to property. The way IP is going, it's not free enterprise, it's Fascism. Next thing the copyright extenders and patent-happy people will be telling me I can't make my own software, or my own movies, or time-shift or space-shift tv shows!
> This is about theft. That's all.
Yes. The theft of the people's rights by a powerful minority. That's all.
Most people in the US have a deficiency in Omega-3 oils, which could be simply cured by eating more nuts and fish. Most people in the US breathe a lot of car exhaust, which contains known carcinogens. Most people in the US eat almost entirely processed food, lacking in vitamins, enzymes, minerals, and essential fats, and pumped full of msg, nutrasweet, sugar, or hydrogenated fats.
If we're dropping left and right from disease and bodily decay, it is our own fault. A healthy body needs no drugs, and it's our own fault we aren't healthy.
That's all to say nothing about the dangers of taking two medications at once - my best friend died 4 years ago from taking two flu medications at once.
A drug companies job is to make money. What method gets them more money?
1: Go out in nature, find cures for disease, tell people about them, and sell the remedy.
2: Find a new drug that offers quick relief of pain, but you have to keep taking it and it need not do anything to actually saolve the problem.
(I was going to have a go at patenting one about 5 years ago, before I saw the light!)
Bless you, sir. Or ma'am. Somebody tried to talk me into patenting an idea of mine, but I resisted him because I had a bad feeling about patents. Now I know, and I'm glad I didn't.
"The sad truth is that if companies were not afforded patent protection, then their massive research budgets would go to cutthroat marketing and developing snake-oil."
The sad truth is that since companies are afforded patent protection, their massive research budgets are going to cutthroat litigation and sueing anyone who invents anything that might sometime threaten their profits.
"What is the incentive to write music if one can't reasonably expect to derive royalties from recordings and for-pay performances during her lifetime?"
Art? Love? The joy of creation?
Take away the monetary rewards, and you filter out the gold-diggers and the corporate whores. Are you saying the real artists wouldn't get compensated with money? As a general rule, *they don't now, either.*
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see a detailed comparison of non-US countries as to where they stand on IP, censorship, network bandwidth, and other important issues.
"community owned product"
By definition, Free software isn't owned. Information should be as free as sunlight.
"everyone takes part in the production process"
Free enterprise hard at work. However, this time, the profits are far more valuble than mere money.
"everyone reaps the benefits of the production process"
This is software we're talking about here. How could it be any other way? Everyone should reap the benefits of a non-scarce resource.
"I'd say we're pretty damn close to Marxism."
I agree with that. A ruling elite in their boardrooms and commitees deciding the fate of all us lowly programmers... some idealistic heros trying to stir us to resist... as the executives and lawyers squeeze their iron fists around us... when comes the famous flip-flop?
Funny you should bring up the GPL to defend IP - I don't think the GPL is right, either. I would go along with the GPL out of politeness, and because I think the source should be free, not because I have to. I wouldn't violate the GPL, but I don't think it should be enforceable.
The GPL does two things I don't like:
1. The GPL tries to spread, forcing its way into other programs. I think viral is a bad word for that, since it is rather offensive to people who like the GPL, but the GPL is a... very reproductive license. This is not in and of itself bad, but it is worrisome.
2. The GPL presumes authors have the right to control what other people do with their creations. RMS talks about free software, but then he said "...if we let them use the code in proprietary software products." in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
If GPL'd software is so free, why do the users of the GPL think they have the right to not let others use their code in whatever way they want?
This is why I prefer BSD-style or public domain "licenses." I don't think I have the right to tell other people what they can do with my code. This is why, though I admire RMS's motives, I disagree with the GPL, and with IP.
"Why should I spend a bunch of time and energy creating something that isn't going to put money in my pocket or otherwise benefit me?"
But there is a way it otherwise benefits you. There is now a program where there was not. You made it, you can change or customize it in any way you want, and you can do anything you want with it without having to sign your firstborn child away in some EULA. Of course, there is also the respect and admiration of your peers, and another item you can put on your resume. Even if that's not enough benefit for you, it is for me.
"So don't attack IP, because commercial apps are the only way that Linux is going to make it out of the server room."
I fundamentally disagree with you here. All I can say is that I, a guy in my dorm across the hall, and my dad all use Linux on our desktop boxes. My dad has a windows box, but rarely uses it. Kevin and I don't have windows, and have no interest in it. Our desktops work fine with only Linux. No, we aren't the average end user, but I don't mind. It's good enough for me. Way better than Windows, IMHO.
"IP when applied correctly is a benefit to society."
I won't argue with you here, but I don't understand. How can you correctly apply IP without it being a form of content control?
"Blaming IP for all the crap that's been going on with the DMCA, Napster, etc. etc. is exactly like blaming a gun when someone is killed."
Yes, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and Amazon are certainly fully to blame for what they did. However, I also disagree with IP because I think it is a bad set of laws. I don't see how IP can exist without content control, and I think content control is evil.
"...not the principle of IP. If it weren't for it, there would be no GPL."
If there was no IP and no GPL, I would not miss either. Yes, I am sure there would be problems, but they would be our own problems, not injustices enforced upon us by big government and big business.
"I do acknowledge the MPAA's goals here - they are entitled to cash for movies."
Small nit - the MPAA is entitled to however much their customers are willing to pay. The marketplace does not reward effort, just results, and fair price is determined by the suppliers and consumers together. In short, the MPAA cannot just set their own price and expect to collect payment, unless they can convince their customers to play along. The MPAA's true owners are the moviegoing fans.
Will someone please explain to me why copyright and patent infringements are called theft? What has been stolen?
This is a serious question. I'm not looking for tired analogies to stealing a car, or borrowing a bike, because those analogies don't apply. Keeping in mind the fact that information can be and is naturally copied at will, what justification is there for calling copyrighted information or patented inventions "intellectual property" and calling infringements of IP law "theft"?
I'm talking to believers in copyrights and patents. I'm really trying to understand your point of view. Please don't brush this question off with overused quotations. Please write about what it means to you, and why you believe the way you do.
"You own the CDs.
You don't own the right to do what the hell you like with them. "
Yes, I do. I do because that is fair use - to do anything I want with the cd and the music on it, short of distributing it to other people. That's protected by copyright law. Anything else is free game.
The bike analogy is misapplied. When I listen to a cd, I'm not borrowing anything from anybody. I'm using a copy. It would be like if Johnny asked Susie if he could take pictures of her bike and make a duplicate. Arguably, he wouldn't even have to ask, because building a duplicate of Susie's bike doesn't hurt Susie in any way.
That doesn't work and you know it. I asked a serious question, and I'd like a serious answer, please.
If I implement or expand on someone else's idea or invention, what has been stolen from them? What have they lost?
"Taking something that doesn't belong to you is the definition of theft."
Right. So, what exactly has been taken?
Just a couple questions. Why is implementing or expanding on someone else's idea/invention called stealing? Why do some people think it is somehow wrong?
"What we find here is that people are deliberately trying to upset the applecart and punish these companies, and those who work for them, for doing what is natural, and trying to secure their futures."
The companies are sercuring their futures by destroying the futures of their competitors and open-source programming. Patents are inherently hostile.
"Why are they attacking the companies, when the companies have done nothing wrong?"
The companies in question have done plenty wrong. Nobody blames them for trying to secure their futures. These companies are laying minefields in legally uncharted waters. That is what they are being blamed for. This is not punishment. This is minesweeping.
"It is the patent system they should be attacking, and the government, through protest and through the ballot box."
Here I agree with you completely.
However, I don't see why anti-patent actions should be limited to the measures you suggest. The only legal way to fight the patent system within the patent system, is with prior art. If there was prior art, the company was wrong to apply for the patent, and the patent office was wrong to grant it.
I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree that the people working for the hostile companies should not be punished in any way. However, I don't see how this prior art competition is punishing those people. The offending patents are the target, not the people.
> Heinlein, on the other hand, takes a scientific concept, stretches it with a "what-if" approach, and then everybody has sex.
:)
I thought that was Larry Niven.
Re: Asimov
One thing I really like about Card and Sagan, and I this is where Asimov, Silverberg, Tiptree, and others fall short... is their treatment of religion. A lot of SF preaches about how evil/bad/stupid religion is, and how genius atheists will save the day. That's boring and insulting. Card and Sagan talk about a wide variety of different religious beliefs, and they talk about them in such a way that nearly any strongly religious person will resonate with what they say.
I would say alternative is now mainstream. :) Now, those kinds of music that are alternative these days, like polka and gospel music...
Seriously, though - you're right, alternative is the biggest section, but near as I can tell, that just means that's the most popular thing right now, and it's no longer alternative.
As Contact pointed out, anyone within about 60 light years probably already knows we're here, and anyone within 30 years has had time to send a message back. Since they know exactly where we are, they could use laser for the message, and save on power costs.
We should be watching every star within 31 light years, and gradually widening our search.
Distribution, originally.
Now it is about copy protection, too.
Interesting that you posted anonymously. :)
> If you can show me one person who has not been able to pursue legitimate recording activites because of copy protection I will eat my words. Otherwise I stand by what I say.
My brother, who tried to hook up a DVD player to his stereo system, only to find out the picture was fizz-fuzz. He eventually found out that the problem was all VCRs produced after a certain date won't accept input from a DVD player, making it impossible to back up DVDs onto VCR tapes. That would have been a legitimate recording activity, and he couldn't do it because the movie industries decided to punish him for being able to become a criminal.
No, he would not have made copies for his friends, though I can't prove it to you. He's a stickler for staying legal, so though he was insulted, he swallowed his pride and did it their way.
> And people seem to think no-one gets hurt by these things.
> They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too.
Most record and computer companies depend on an artificial scarcity. They make the whole world poorer, just to allow a content-selfish company to survive. If the people working for those record and computer companies minded being thieves and pirates of our fair use rights, they would have quit long ago.
If you can show me how an ethical and upstanding person can work at Microsoft or Sony, I will eat my words. Otherwise I stand by what I say. I'm not saying they are bad people, I just can't understand why they would stay.
> They are wrong. The people working for record and computer companies have jobs and families too.
Yes, and I'm sure they will still be able to support their families, but working at another company.
> This is just my point. Why the hell shouldn't companies be allowed to protect their property?
Why shouldn't fans be allowed to time-shift and space-shift their favorite shows? I've been reverse-engineering clocks, motors, toy cars, electronics junk, and computers for nearly as long as I've been alive. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reverse-engineer Windows, or the lastest internet filtering software?
> Piracy increases the costs for people who aren't thieves.
"Piracy" is what the media companies are doing.
> If we remove the tools, we remove the crime, and the world is better off in the end.
What a horrifying thought! Should crowbars be illegal because they can be used for burglary? Should binoculars be illegal because they can be used by peeping toms and stalkers? Should syringes be illegal just because they can be used by druggies? If a tool has even *one* legitimate use, it is wrong to make the tool illegal. The US courts have at least ruled this way.
Some would say it is wrong to make tools illegal even if they have no legitimate uses. I can't say they're wrong or right, but it makes sense to punish the criminal, not the tool.
> Next thing the free software guys will be trying to tell me that I can't put a chain on my bike! I mean this is getting Communist in proportions - surely we've got past the belief in common ownership of property.
NO! NO! NO! Do you know what the content on a DVD is? It is a number. A number with many digits, but still a number. Are you seriously telling me that *numbers* can be owned? Bikes can be owned, but ideas, numbers, and words cannot.
I believe very strongly in free enterprise, and an individual's right to property. The way IP is going, it's not free enterprise, it's Fascism. Next thing the copyright extenders and patent-happy people will be telling me I can't make my own software, or my own movies, or time-shift or space-shift tv shows!
> This is about theft. That's all.
Yes. The theft of the people's rights by a powerful minority. That's all.
Most people in the US have a deficiency in Omega-3 oils, which could be simply cured by eating more nuts and fish. Most people in the US breathe a lot of car exhaust, which contains known carcinogens. Most people in the US eat almost entirely processed food, lacking in vitamins, enzymes, minerals, and essential fats, and pumped full of msg, nutrasweet, sugar, or hydrogenated fats.
If we're dropping left and right from disease and bodily decay, it is our own fault. A healthy body needs no drugs, and it's our own fault we aren't healthy.
That's all to say nothing about the dangers of taking two medications at once - my best friend died 4 years ago from taking two flu medications at once.
A drug companies job is to make money. What method gets them more money?
1: Go out in nature, find cures for disease, tell people about them, and sell the remedy.
2: Find a new drug that offers quick relief of pain, but you have to keep taking it and it need not do anything to actually saolve the problem.
Oh, I'm talking prevention, not cures. Drugs are quite useful for quick remedies, but any kind of habitual use ain't healthy at all.
They can too. This is the problem.
(I was going to have a go at patenting one about 5 years ago, before I saw the light!)
Bless you, sir. Or ma'am. Somebody tried to talk me into patenting an idea of mine, but I resisted him because I had a bad feeling about patents. Now I know, and I'm glad I didn't.
Question: What countries don't respect patents? Seriously, I'd like to know, maybe I'd move there.
Open source is whatever the developers want it to be.
If it's conservative, I don't mind. It works for me.
"Damn right they have an interest in protecting it!"
They have an interest in blackmail, libel, and extortion?
"The sad truth is that if companies were not afforded patent protection, then their massive research budgets would go to cutthroat marketing and developing snake-oil."
The sad truth is that since companies are afforded patent protection, their massive research budgets are going to cutthroat litigation and sueing anyone who invents anything that might sometime threaten their profits.
What is the correct spelling?
Hear, hear, or Here, here?
Anyway, I totally agree with you. Natural medicine all the way. Eat your veggies. I'm eating mine.
"What is the incentive to write music if one can't reasonably expect to derive royalties from recordings and for-pay performances during her lifetime?"
Art? Love? The joy of creation?
Take away the monetary rewards, and you filter out the gold-diggers and the corporate whores. Are you saying the real artists wouldn't get compensated with money? As a general rule, *they don't now, either.*