"And how does that apply to the "demand" for free information that we were discussing?"
What do you get out of discussing things on Slashdot? There's your free information right there, obviously you are meeting a demand, and presumably you are getting something out of it.
"Putting the RIAA aside, GPL infringers infringe upon the copyrights of the authors of the software."
I am working from the assumption that those who use the GPL do so because they support the goals of the free software movement.
If there are people who just want a free ride, who don't want to pay a lawyer to draft them a license, I wish them all the best, but I don't really care if they get shafted.
"This is something they have created, and honestly, they should, and do, have the final word over what happens to their works."
Hard work entitles you to exactly nothing.
The reason people generally get rewarded for work, is because the parties involved agreed so, and the reason people generally get rewarded for the fruits of their talent is because there is more demand for the products of a talented worker than for those of an untalented one.
"Finally, information doesn't 'want' anything -- it's an intangible concept, like 'santa claus' or 'income tax reform'."
Next time, try to understand English before you post. "Wants" also means "ought", "should".
And when they walk up to the sales droid of the infringing party to mash him up a little, they get confused when he tells them he's had sex within the last year. With a real woman, too!
"The point was you don't need to agree to the terms of the GPL if you just use the software."
You never need to agree to the terms of any license. (But if you do something the license does not allow you to, you are breaking the law.)
More importantly: how come you are able to use software without copying it? Don't you copy your software from CD-ROM to hard disk? And then from hard disk to memory?
"Since open-source licenses (including the GPL) depend on copyright law for their enforcement, most open source advocates seem to have no problem with existing copyright laws as it applies to software."
The GPL is not an open-source license. (There is no such thing as an open-source license, as open source is about marketing, not about freedom.)
The GPL depends on copyright law for its enforcement, because it was built that way. The people behind the GPL want copyright on software abandoned.
That is why Free Software (which is not Open Source Software) advocates have a major problem with copyright laws.
You may think "to-mah-to", "to-may-to", but by not making the distinction you started talking major BS. Once again: Free Software advocates do not want copyright! Since that goal is unobtainable in the short term, they have hacked copyright law.
What's more, Cebit is a public space. Potential customers hang out there. It's pretty embarassing when somebody shows up and tells you that you have been "stealing" stuff, just when you were trying to woo a big fish.
"No, since Photoshop is immensely better than The GIMP, from both a functional and aesthetic viewpoint."
Unless Adobe start granting scientists access to the source code of Photoshop, it is a pretty safe bet this technique will be implemented in GIMP first.
As for your unqualified comment that "X is better than Y, so there"... should I really reply to that?
"And this is why Apple's design is protected by law, because that's not a fair business practice and it should not be done."
Er, no, you've got that the wrong way around. It's not a fair business practice because the law says so. There is nothing inherently unfair about copying.
For the consumers it's even better, because they get more value for money.
The problematic thing in this case is that consumers are being tricked into believing they buy an Apple product when they don't. Unfortunately, there is no law to protect consumers against such practices. (No, trademark law does not count.)
"section 10.08 of the aforementioned act says it is legal to make copies for personal use"
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but the bit of law you are quoting seems to imply that it is actually illegal to make these copies, but that you may not be sued for it. (Which, admittedly, is very weird.)
From the site that you claim has got the monopoly on reality: "Their reports were accurate because they were based on information that Apple claims was obtained by violating trade secret law."
Ah yes, so if Apple _claims_ something it must be true. You wouldn't happen to have some court documents, fanboy?
"Am I right in thinking that this will cause US patents to become valid in Europe and vice versa?"
You are wrong.
Anyone can patent an invention (or, really, pretty much anything) in the United States. The applicant need not live in a country that recognizes certain patents themselves. The system is not reciprocal.
Since Microsoft does not produce PCs (unless you count the XBox as one), the point is moot. There was never going to be a choice between Mac hardware and PC hardware.
"I'm not sure how many nay-sayers this "shocking news" might bring out, but my opinion is that if he fights his desktop environment less for day-to-day tasks, he might have more time, energy, and mental resources to code the linux kernel."
Which is why he erased that pile-o-junk called Mac OS from the hard disk and installed Linux instead.
Now if only the rest of the Mac world would follow, we'd see some real productivity boosts!
(I am joking, I couldn't care less what anybody uses, as long as they feel happy with it.)
"All evidence does not point to the fact that copyright is harmfull to works. Maybe not everyone obeys the laws - but many people do. I have a friend who refuses to download dungeons and dragons pdf files because it is again the law...so at least in one person that i know of, it does work."
I think you misunderstand me. You seem to conflate the good of the author with the good of the work. I don't know why you would assume that. If you do, please enlighten me.
Here's a simple example of what I mean, though. Say I own a rare copy of a rare record. I would like to be able to play it more often, but realize that every time I put it on the player, the needle will slightly damage the record.
I could make a digital copy which would never be damaged, but copying is exactly the thing that is prohibited by copyright law. However, I could argue that such a copy is fair use (please note that many record companies argue the opposite!, though not too loudly), so I go ahead and make a FLAC file of the record.
To be sure the record survives, I would like to share it with a couple of friends. However, that definitely is prohibited by copyright law, and even a fair use defense seems unlikely to hold up here.
Then I get killed in an accident. My heirs wipe my hard disk, and put my old and musty records with the garbage, where they get destroyed, including the rare one. The work is lost: copyright law did its job.
Protection of a work is that which keeps a work safe from harm. One could argue what sort of harm can befall a work; the only argument that I think would hold up always is that a work can be lost.
Now which do you think is most harmful in that sense to a work: copyright, or lack of copyright? Sure, the latter can prevent a work coming into existence. But a work that never existed can not be lost.
All evidence points to the fact that copyright is harmful to works. The basic tenet of copyright is that it is better to have many works that are harmed, than few that are safe. Unfortunately, there is not much research (if any) that supports this tenet.
So is there nothing or no-one that copyright protects? Sure there is! Copyright protects interests and people. It protects the interests of publishers, and by extension it protects the publishers. And in some instances, copyright protects the interests of authors, and by extension it protects these authors.
However, copyright does not protect works. At least not in the US, with its lax regime of moral rights. (And that moral rights protect works is at least arguable.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Those like me who've BANDAGED and KISSED the TREE"
Anonymous coward, you are an idiot! Of course, you must have known by now, your mommy told you so.
(BTW, feel free to hunt me down like the dog I am. I am not hard to find, and once you've found me I will pinch your pimple.)
"And how does that apply to the "demand" for free information that we were discussing?"
What do you get out of discussing things on Slashdot? There's your free information right there, obviously you are meeting a demand, and presumably you are getting something out of it.
"Putting the RIAA aside, GPL infringers infringe upon the copyrights of the authors of the software."
I am working from the assumption that those who use the GPL do so because they support the goals of the free software movement.
If there are people who just want a free ride, who don't want to pay a lawyer to draft them a license, I wish them all the best, but I don't really care if they get shafted.
"This is something they have created, and honestly, they should, and do, have the final word over what happens to their works."
Hard work entitles you to exactly nothing.
The reason people generally get rewarded for work, is because the parties involved agreed so, and the reason people generally get rewarded for the fruits of their talent is because there is more demand for the products of a talented worker than for those of an untalented one.
"Finally, information doesn't 'want' anything -- it's an intangible concept, like 'santa claus' or 'income tax reform'."
Next time, try to understand English before you post. "Wants" also means "ought", "should".
And when they walk up to the sales droid of the infringing party to mash him up a little, they get confused when he tells them he's had sex within the last year. With a real woman, too!
"The point was you don't need to agree to the terms of the GPL if you just use the software."
You never need to agree to the terms of any license. (But if you do something the license does not allow you to, you are breaking the law.)
More importantly: how come you are able to use software without copying it? Don't you copy your software from CD-ROM to hard disk? And then from hard disk to memory?
"Since open-source licenses (including the GPL) depend on copyright law for their enforcement, most open source advocates seem to have no problem with existing copyright laws as it applies to software."
The GPL is not an open-source license. (There is no such thing as an open-source license, as open source is about marketing, not about freedom.)
The GPL depends on copyright law for its enforcement, because it was built that way. The people behind the GPL want copyright on software abandoned.
That is why Free Software (which is not Open Source Software) advocates have a major problem with copyright laws.
You may think "to-mah-to", "to-may-to", but by not making the distinction you started talking major BS. Once again: Free Software advocates do not want copyright! Since that goal is unobtainable in the short term, they have hacked copyright law.
RIAA members steal from the public. GPL infringers steal from the public. Same thing.
What's more, Cebit is a public space. Potential customers hang out there. It's pretty embarassing when somebody shows up and tells you that you have been "stealing" stuff, just when you were trying to woo a big fish.
Even marketroids can see that.
"--"Before you can enforce a copyright, you must register it with the Library of Congress."
Bzzzzt! Try again."
[snip quote from the copyright office]
Er, he was talking about enforcing a copyright, which is different from obtaining a copyright.
"No, since Photoshop is immensely better than The GIMP, from both a functional and aesthetic viewpoint."
... should I really reply to that?
Unless Adobe start granting scientists access to the source code of Photoshop, it is a pretty safe bet this technique will be implemented in GIMP first.
As for your unqualified comment that "X is better than Y, so there"
"And this is why Apple's design is protected by law, because that's not a fair business practice and it should not be done."
Er, no, you've got that the wrong way around. It's not a fair business practice because the law says so. There is nothing inherently unfair about copying.
For the consumers it's even better, because they get more value for money.
The problematic thing in this case is that consumers are being tricked into believing they buy an Apple product when they don't. Unfortunately, there is no law to protect consumers against such practices. (No, trademark law does not count.)
If I ask for proof rather than accepting vague allegations, I get marked down a troll. It would be funny if this was the first time that happened.
Perhaps Slashdot should review its moderation system.
"section 10.08 of the aforementioned act says it is legal to make copies for personal use"
Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but the bit of law you are quoting seems to imply that it is actually illegal to make these copies, but that you may not be sued for it. (Which, admittedly, is very weird.)
"Good write up on the reality here."
From the site that you claim has got the monopoly on reality: "Their reports were accurate because they were based on information that Apple claims was obtained by violating trade secret law."
Ah yes, so if Apple _claims_ something it must be true. You wouldn't happen to have some court documents, fanboy?
"I seriously wonder if the European Union is actually a legitimate legal entity."
It is one by proxy. The member states grant it that power, and not one of them dares to play a game of bluff by threatening to leave the union.
If I read things correctly, the US was like that once too.
"Let no-one say (in the future) that they invented some part of it, claim it's novel, and encumber it with a patent."
Why not? What would you do about it?
Litigation may not be expensive in the EU when you compare it to the US, it can still be very expensive on its own.
"Without patents, one would have to continually innovate to stay ahead of the competition.
[...]
The funny thing is patents are there to allow innovators to get their money back."
The funny thing is that that is not true. Patents are there to stimulate innovation. Now go back and see what you wrote in your first sentence.
"Am I right in thinking that this will cause US patents to become valid in Europe and vice versa?"
You are wrong.
Anyone can patent an invention (or, really, pretty much anything) in the United States. The applicant need not live in a country that recognizes certain patents themselves. The system is not reciprocal.
You misspelled "bad" by about five letters.
Since Microsoft does not produce PCs (unless you count the XBox as one), the point is moot. There was never going to be a choice between Mac hardware and PC hardware.
"I'm not sure how many nay-sayers this "shocking news" might bring out, but my opinion is that if he fights his desktop environment less for day-to-day tasks, he might have more time, energy, and mental resources to code the linux kernel."
Which is why he erased that pile-o-junk called Mac OS from the hard disk and installed Linux instead.
Now if only the rest of the Mac world would follow, we'd see some real productivity boosts!
(I am joking, I couldn't care less what anybody uses, as long as they feel happy with it.)
Yeah, what next?! Cats and dogs living together, anonymous cowards learning how to spell!
"The other harm is that to the copyright owner."
I am not contesting that. (I could, but I won't.)
"All evidence does not point to the fact that copyright is harmfull to works. Maybe not everyone obeys the laws - but many people do. I have a friend who refuses to download dungeons and dragons pdf files because it is again the law...so at least in one person that i know of, it does work."
I think you misunderstand me. You seem to conflate the good of the author with the good of the work. I don't know why you would assume that. If you do, please enlighten me.
Here's a simple example of what I mean, though. Say I own a rare copy of a rare record. I would like to be able to play it more often, but realize that every time I put it on the player, the needle will slightly damage the record.
I could make a digital copy which would never be damaged, but copying is exactly the thing that is prohibited by copyright law. However, I could argue that such a copy is fair use (please note that many record companies argue the opposite!, though not too loudly), so I go ahead and make a FLAC file of the record.
To be sure the record survives, I would like to share it with a couple of friends. However, that definitely is prohibited by copyright law, and even a fair use defense seems unlikely to hold up here.
Then I get killed in an accident. My heirs wipe my hard disk, and put my old and musty records with the garbage, where they get destroyed, including the rare one. The work is lost: copyright law did its job.
"So how would you define it?"
Protection of a work is that which keeps a work safe from harm. One could argue what sort of harm can befall a work; the only argument that I think would hold up always is that a work can be lost.
Now which do you think is most harmful in that sense to a work: copyright, or lack of copyright? Sure, the latter can prevent a work coming into existence. But a work that never existed can not be lost.
All evidence points to the fact that copyright is harmful to works. The basic tenet of copyright is that it is better to have many works that are harmed, than few that are safe. Unfortunately, there is not much research (if any) that supports this tenet.
So is there nothing or no-one that copyright protects? Sure there is! Copyright protects interests and people. It protects the interests of publishers, and by extension it protects the publishers. And in some instances, copyright protects the interests of authors, and by extension it protects these authors.
However, copyright does not protect works. At least not in the US, with its lax regime of moral rights. (And that moral rights protect works is at least arguable.)