The Romans tried to stop christianity. Christianity became popular. Drugs were made illegal in this country. Drugs became popular. Rock music was chastized by the establishment as being "satanic". Rock becomes popular. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?
Problem is that you are mixing up the cause/effect stuff. These things didn't became popular because some power tried to stop them! On the contrary, the power tried to stop them because they were becoming popular. Your post seems to think that things become more popular as some power tries to stop them. In realty, sometimes (too many, for my taste) the powersucceedes! (in these cases we later are forced to think that these ideas were not worth at all!)
bricius--
Re:the copying vs copyright clause
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
Does Intellectual Property exists at all?
This doesn't mean that the IP is worth less. And it doesn't mean the the owner of the IP should just give up protecting their property. And it doesn't mean that the whole system is flawed. It means that if you believe that your property is being taken away from you, you have to fight harder to protect it. ... If it's your property, and you feel strongly in that being your property, then you need to protect it.
... if it's your property...but is it? When you have an idea, being it a melody, a sonet, an algorithm, a novel or a simphony, till it stays inside your mind only, then it is certainly your. But is it your property? If someone else comes out with the same idea and publish it, then it is his idea, no more your, even if you know that you had that idea far before that other one was even born. So now the idea have been published in some form by you or by someone else. I am now exposed to that idea, by reading, listening or watching it in its actual form. Now I understand that idea and I have it in my mind in the same way you had it before. Am I stoling it from you? No. Can someone force me to delete it from my mind? No. So how can the supposed owner of that idea claim to be deprived or enforce ownership on it? Intellectual Property is a broken concept! If you don't share it you don't own it. By sharing it you give it away. You don't own it, you never owned it, and a law saying you own it is like a law affirming that the sun should turn around the hearth: yust a funny idiocy.
Back to the subject. If you don't own the IP, what is the Copyright Law about? The Copyright Law gives a temporary monopoly on the economic benefits that can (but may not) come by mean of copying, distributing or performing the actual form of the idea, to the person(s) publishing it, in exchange of their act of sharing it with all the other people, for the explicit purpose of creating an economic incentive to produce more sharing.
Now comes the last part: It's the publishing act that generates the sharing, and therefore it's that one the actual moment when the "IP goes into Public Domain".
This is absurd and can bring to stolen property! Let's check with a real example: a singer, well known with the name Cat Stevens, wrote and published a lot of songs and poetry. Later he converted itself to Islam religion and consequently disclosed authorship of those blasfemity he published earlier. He tryed hard to have those ideas destroyed. Guess what? He lost. An author do not have the right to destroy his own published IP because he does not own it; its in the public domain, even if its economic benefits are still granted to him (until his copyright expires).
To encourage authorship, copyright law gives authors a limited and exclusive property right to their works.
The sentence above, quoted from the linked article, is in someway contraddictory and absurd. If I create something, it's mine, and I own it, and therefore I don't need the law to give me a right (property) that I already have.
So, how comes that there was the need to give to authors what they alredy had? And with limitations moreover! It was because they had given their property away. Did they? Yes. When you publish your creation you give away your property, and exactly you give away the immaterial content of your creation, keeping ownership only of the material part. That is the reason for the existance of the copyright law, and is a good reason. To ensure that more and more content is given away to the public, the law garantees that economic benefit of the diffusion of that content be in exclusive benefit of the author, for a limited time. It does not give the property back to the authors. It gives them only the economic benefit.
At the same time, to ensure that the general public has access to information, copyright law gives the public the right to make "fair use" of copyrighted works without the author's permission.
Also the fair use doctrine refers to economic benefit: I can quote your book in my article (which is a recension of your book) and sell it without paying you nothing. This is fair use.
When you transfer to your hard disk the content of the CD (or DVD) for which you already payed the economic benefit to the author (or owner of the copy-right), you are not stealing nothing.
The fact that the Media industry wants you to pay that tax more than once is just indication of their greediness.
bricius -- just my 0.02 euros Stop the greediness! Fight the Intellectual Property! Has anybody read the preamble to the original Copyright Treaty?
In the words of my father, shortly after I explained to him the current problems with mp3s and dvds,
"Why don't you people who are making open source software start making music and movies the same way?"
Your father is right. Music, both written and executed, is copyrightable artwork; Movies are also copyrightable artworks; software, which can be seen also as a collective art like movies are, is as well a copyrightable artwork.
Music is made by musicians, and software is made by programmers. We are programmer, I am a programmer, we do Free Software, I do Free Software. Are there any musician which wants to start doing Free Music?
I perfectly remember the times (not so many years ago) when I had to hear twice a day the legend "no real programmer will never work for free". I spent a lot of time explaining why and how I do Free Software.
Isn't now time to start confuting the legend that "no real musician will ever play or compose for free"?
Linus didn't stop someone who was trying to register a Linux domain; he stopped someone who was trying to sellLinux domains at the highest price (by auction). Selling domain names is a business that Linus doesn't want to see mixed with the word Linux, and I fully agree with him.
... the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone. ... to steal from others is socially destructive.
It's impossible to disagree with these obvious statements.
If you make a copy, that is theft...
Is the above statement equally obvious? I don't think so. The above reasoning comes from the idea that copyrighted works and patents are Intellettual Property. They are not. They are a Temporary Concession granted by the Social Community to the copyright and patent holder. It is logical and expected that the law protects these grant.
The use of words like theft, robbery, property has only the effort of making things look worse.
The use of distribution media that enforces these grant forever is even doubiously legal, IMHO. If copying a DVD is illegal even when the copyright on its content will be expired, then I smell something wrong.
Is there any serious Linux company that doesn't employ at least a couple of people who have contributed to Linux and other GPL'd software?
Open-source paradigm is based on the trust of the community. Hiring free sw developers (to develop free sw) will increase the company's karma. Once Linux-companies will start competing between them, you'll see advertisements based on how much they have contributed to the community.
No. Imagine you buy 21 different programs from 21 different vendors, but you buy them all in the same shop, with one single bill, maybe bundled in a single box. It's obvious that each vendor will fix only their own part and you'll get 21 different fixes. What you can expect from the shop is that they bundle the fixes in the same way they bundled the programs. And this is what Linux distributions already do (Debian at least).
If I was a goverment agent in charge of snooping through email don't you think that I would have a scanner similar to a virus detector looking for encrypted messages?
That's exactly the reason why we all should use encryption for _all_ of our messages.
Slashdot Mirror
- The Romans tried to stop christianity. Christianity became popular. Drugs were made illegal in this country. Drugs became popular. Rock music was chastized by the establishment as being "satanic". Rock becomes popular. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?
Problem is that you are mixing up the cause/effect stuff. These things didn't became popular because some power tried to stop them! On the contrary, the power tried to stop them because they were becoming popular.Your post seems to think that things become more popular as some power tries to stop them.
In realty, sometimes (too many, for my taste) the power succeedes! (in these cases we later are forced to think that these ideas were not worth at all!)
bricius--
- This doesn't mean that the IP is worth less. And it doesn't mean the the owner of the IP should just give up protecting their property. And it doesn't mean that the whole system is flawed. It means that if you believe that your property is being taken away from you, you have to fight harder to protect it.
... if it's your property...
If it's your property, and you feel strongly in that being your property, then you need to protect it.
When you have an idea, being it a melody, a sonet, an algorithm, a novel or a simphony, till it stays inside your mind only, then it is certainly your. But is it your property? If someone else comes out with the same idea and publish it, then it is his idea, no more your, even if you know that you had that idea far before that other one was even born.
So now the idea have been published in some form by you or by someone else. I am now exposed to that idea, by reading, listening or watching it in its actual form. Now I understand that idea and I have it in my mind in the same way you had it before. Am I stoling it from you? No. Can someone force me to delete it from my mind? No. So how can the supposed owner of that idea claim to be deprived or enforce ownership on it?
Intellectual Property is a broken concept!
If you don't share it you don't own it. By sharing it you give it away.
You don't own it, you never owned it, and a law saying you own it is like a law affirming that the sun should turn around the hearth: yust a funny idiocy.
Back to the subject.
If you don't own the IP, what is the Copyright Law about?
The Copyright Law gives a temporary monopoly on the economic benefits that can (but may not) come by mean of copying, distributing or performing the actual form of the idea, to the person(s) publishing it, in exchange of their act of sharing it with all the other people, for the explicit purpose of creating an economic incentive to produce more sharing.
Now comes the last part:
It's the publishing act that generates the sharing, and therefore it's that one the actual moment when the "IP goes into Public Domain".
This is absurd and can bring to stolen property!
Let's check with a real example: a singer, well known with the name Cat Stevens, wrote and published a lot of songs and poetry. Later he converted itself to Islam religion and consequently disclosed authorship of those blasfemity he published earlier.
He tryed hard to have those ideas destroyed. Guess what? He lost. An author do not have the right to destroy his own published IP because he does not own it; its in the public domain, even if its economic benefits are still granted to him (until his copyright expires).
- To encourage authorship, copyright law gives authors a limited and exclusive property right to their works.
The sentence above, quoted from the linked article, is in someway contraddictory and absurd.If I create something, it's mine, and I own it, and therefore I don't need the law to give me a right (property) that I already have.
So, how comes that there was the need to give to authors what they alredy had? And with limitations moreover!
It was because they had given their property away. Did they?
Yes. When you publish your creation you give away your property, and exactly you give away the immaterial content of your creation, keeping ownership only of the material part.
That is the reason for the existance of the copyright law, and is a good reason.
To ensure that more and more content is given away to the public, the law garantees that economic benefit of the diffusion of that content be in exclusive benefit of the author, for a limited time.
It does not give the property back to the authors. It gives them only the economic benefit.
- At the same time, to ensure that the general public has access to information, copyright law gives the public the right to make "fair use" of copyrighted works without the author's permission.
Also the fair use doctrine refers to economic benefit: I can quote your book in my article (which is a recension of your book) and sell it without paying you nothing. This is fair use.When you transfer to your hard disk the content of the CD (or DVD) for which you already payed the economic benefit to the author (or owner of the copy-right), you are not stealing nothing.
The fact that the Media industry wants you to pay that tax more than once is just indication of their greediness.
bricius -- just my 0.02 euros
Stop the greediness! Fight the Intellectual Property!
Has anybody read the preamble to the original Copyright Treaty?
movies the same way?"
Your father is right.
Music, both written and executed, is copyrightable artwork;
Movies are also copyrightable artworks;
software, which can be seen also as a collective art like movies are, is as well a copyrightable artwork.
Music is made by musicians, and software is made by programmers.
We are programmer, I am a programmer, we do Free Software, I do Free Software.
Are there any musician which wants to start doing Free Music?
I perfectly remember the times (not so many years ago) when I had to hear twice a day the legend "no real programmer will never work for free".
I spent a lot of time explaining why and how I do Free Software.
Isn't now time to start confuting the legend that "no real musician will ever play or compose for free"?
bricius
--
Linus didn't stop someone who was trying to register a Linux domain; he stopped someone who was trying to sell Linux domains at the highest price (by auction).
Selling domain names is a business that Linus doesn't want to see mixed with the word Linux, and I fully agree with him.
It's impossible to disagree with these obvious statements.
Is the above statement equally obvious?
I don't think so.
The above reasoning comes from the idea that copyrighted works and patents are Intellettual Property .
They are not.
They are a Temporary Concession granted by the Social Community to the copyright and patent holder.
It is logical and expected that the law protects these grant.
The use of words like theft, robbery, property has only the effort of making things look worse.
The use of distribution media that enforces these grant forever is even doubiously legal, IMHO.
If copying a DVD is illegal even when the copyright on its content will be expired, then I smell something wrong.
Just my 2 euro.
- Is there any serious Linux company that doesn't employ at least a couple of people who have contributed to Linux and other GPL'd software?
Open-source paradigm is based on the trust of the community.Hiring free sw developers (to develop free sw) will increase the company's karma.
Once Linux-companies will start competing between them, you'll see advertisements based on how much they have contributed to the community.
This can be called a virtuous circle.
> Do they have a point?
No.
Imagine you buy 21 different programs from 21 different vendors, but you buy them all in the same shop, with one single bill, maybe bundled in a single box.
It's obvious that each vendor will fix only their own part and you'll get 21 different fixes.
What you can expect from the shop is that they bundle the fixes in the same way they bundled the programs.
And this is what Linux distributions already do (Debian at least).
Cheers!
That's exactly the reason why we all should use encryption for _all_ of our messages.