The NYT's editorial will give Linux's profile a bit of a nudge, but I have to think that the biggest single push toward consumer popularity would come from an AOL client for Linux. I know the combination of Linux and AOL is anathema to a lot of folks, but tens of millions of AOL users won't consider moving to Linux until AOL does.
My guess: they don't know about it. Posting entire NYT articles and editorials isn't likely to be seen as fair use, and deprives them of revenue at their site, so they'd have reason to send/. a cease-and-desist letter. That would actually be interesting: Would/. management have to take responsibility for what's published here?
I gotta tell you that I've had my Mac for all of two months (my Linux machine is sitting unplugged over in the corner), and I just don't care about any of the issues you raise. They obviously really annoy lots of other folks, though. But, in the end, none of those issues have any affect on how I use my computer.
After several years of using Linux, I decided one day that I was spending too much time tweaking and adjusting Linux. I can afford a Mac, so I bought one. I've lost zero capability and get more done faster. As the cliche goes, your mileage may vary.
We can tell what elements reside in stars. Why doubt that the same technology can tell us what resides in planets orbiting those stars? You don't have to build a visual map of an object to tell what it's made of.
Your point of view is often premised by a commitment to free software and open source as important agents of social change. That's a valid frame of reference, but one I don't share. They are interesting and important software development and distribution tools, but I think that's about it.
O'Reilly's role in open source doesn't compel him to ignore other developments or to espouse open source solutions for all situations. If he did, he would be acting in a partisan, quasi-political manner. Since he does not act or speak in that way -- particularly after he publicly doubted the wisdom of forcing the State of California to trade one software monopoly for another -- he takes unjustified abuse here and elsewhere from open source partisans.
As a publisher and writer, O'Reilly is not obligated to ensure that all possible points of view and opinion are represented in each single piece of material he posts to his company's site. No media or news organization has that obligation. If anyone had that obligation, we do, as consumers. If we really want a well-balanced diet of news and information (and most people don't) it is up to us to take information from a variety of sources. He's written two openly anecdotal pieces about Linux users migrating to OS X, not two impartial assessments of the relative strengths and weakness of all operating systems. That migration doesn't imply that Linux is a failure. It just implies that people will use what appeals to them and that Linux, unsurprisingly, is not a universal answer. Sure, the email is all pro-OS X. That's to be expected in a piece that deliberately looks at happy OS X users.
(In essence, I don't understand why some people get so upset about Apple and OS X. Or, why someone would feel a need to write the Freshmeat piece. Why all this consternation about whether or not is a 'real" Unix? Why fuss about some files that aren't where you expect to find them? Why do so many people castigate Apple and then go on a rant about the price of a Mac? Who cares about all that? None of that stuff is important. These things are just operating systems. In the end, they all do the same thing in almost identical fashion, just like Fords and Toyotas.)
That's another part of the dogma that keeps Linux off desktops. Software can be developed for any bloody platform, not just Linux. When someone says 'Oh boy! Linux gives me the freedom to develop any app I want!", they're just mouthing disingenuous propaganda.
What potential Linux users hear is this: "If I want that program, I'll have to learn to program myself, or wait for some anonymous Linux developers to do it for me."
So the choice becomes:
1. Quit my day job and take a couple of years learning to be a competent developer; 2. Wait for someone else to write what I want for Linux; 3. Keep on using a commercial platform and shop around.
Suppose that I, by some improbable miracle, have a brainstorm that I can translate into a product that will sell in the millions, making me wealthy in the process. Let's also say that one day I have too much to drink and blab it all to someone in a bar. Then, that person takes my idea and gets his products to market before I can. As a result, his taking of my idea has cost me significant gain. How the IP laws are written, or even if they exist at all, would change nothing in this scenario. Ideas exist and have value absent IP legislation.
You seem to expect O'Reilly to act as a shill for open source. Why does O'Reilly's position as a book publisher mandate that he is not allowed an opinion? Or that he is obligated to behave in a fashion approved by open source dogmatics? He is under no obligation to even try and give any consideration to anyone's opinions about ODX, good, bad, or indifferent. He's simply making the point that a number of Linux users have dropped that OS and moved to OS X. No one except fantatics cares if OS X is r-e-a-l-l-y Unix or not or if buying a Mac threatens the open source movement. There are people who think having religious opinions about operating systems makes about as much sense as having religious opinions about automobile transmissions.
Besides, if you'd read the piece, you'd see that it contains criticism of Apple as well as praise.
China is not a democracy. The Chinese government exists by virtue of the Chinese Communist Party's military victory in 1949, not by any sense of popular electoral will or sovereignty. As a one-party state buttressed by military power, they cannot risk the free flow of information among the Chinese people. Hence, their attempts to control access to internet sites. This is completely in keeping with the Chinese government's and the Chinese Communist Party's traditional control of media and information.
Governments seldom engage in rash acts to improve the lot of people in other countries. They commonly act in what they believe is in the interests of their country and themselves. That is what governments do; it is naive to imagine otherwise. The oppression of human rights in China is wrong, but that fact does not pose an immediate threat to the U.S. In any case, what would be gained for the U.S. to threaten military action against China?
The Bush administration believes Iraq does pose a threat to the U.S., citing Saddam Hussein's behavior pattern with considerable justification. This includes invading Kuwait, gassing his own countrymen, launching a war on Iran that cost more than one million lives, creating and using a vicious internal secret police, etc. In particular, there's little convincing evidence that Saddam would not use nuclear weapons if he had them. China has had nuclear weapons for decades and has acted responsibly vis-a-vis those weapons. You will find very few people -- inside and outside the U.S. Government -- who believe Saddam would behave equally responsibly.
Without IP law, there can be no theft of an idea. Ideas can only be copied. No one can deprive you of an idea. Any potential benefit and gain from being sole owner of an idea exists solely because of IP laws.
I think that's largely semantics. Whether they "steal" or "copy" it, anyone who takes my idea potentially deprives me of gain I would otherwise have received from exploitation of that idea.
>> So I guess all these free software programmers are in it for the money?
No, they aren't. But all those other programmers are in it for the money. The free software notion is an interesting development and distribution model. But it is not the only viable and legitimate model. In addition, it is a development model that has yet to demonstrate that it can completely substitute, in quality, quantity, and originality, for commercial models. Most importantly, the free software model does not map to broader human economic activities.
My suggestions are to shorten the term of copyrights, repeal the DMCA and add a clause to copyright law stating that if the method you choose to copy-protect your work prevents fair use, then you lose your copyright protection.
Sounds reasonable to me. We can agree that IP laws and copyright length have been unfairly extended in violation of the intent of the legislation.
>> If you have an idea, and somebody else uses that idea, you still have that idea to use as you wish. You have lost nothing.
The theft of my idea deprives me of potential benefit and gain as the sole owner of the idea. While it is true that I, personally, may still use my idea after someone has stolen it, that kind of personal use is not equivalent to the use I might make of it had I retained exclusive ownership. For example, say I develop a unique idea that can be the basis for a working perpetual motion machine. My potential benefit and gain from the further development of that notion is obvious. If someone steals the idea from me and works independently to develop the machine, their theft has deprived me of enormous benefit and gain.
>> Without copyright law, the physical book you hold in your hand is yours, but the copies somone else makes of it aren't and don't make your book any less valuable since you can still use the book you have.
Only true if the only value derived from the book is from the information it contains. An author has a right to attempt to sell his book, thereby dreving value from it. Copyright protects that right. Lack of copyright negates that right and deprives authors of the financial potential of their work.
In general, I think your argument that property has no existence outside the law to be specious, and your assertion that changing copyright and property law would benefit society to be equally specious. The primary impact on society would be a tremendous reduction in "creative" activity as every author, musician, developer, etc., who depends on the revenue generated from their work moves on to something else.
>>...doesn't mean it's wrong in any absolute sense though.
So what? The law doesn't recognize anyone's "absolute sense" of right and wrong, even if such a thing actually exists. You can't defend or justify an illegal action by claiming that you have an absolute sense that it is not wrong. There are lots of people who thought the murder they commited was morally acceptable. That doesn't make it legal.
You're simply trying to justify an action that society as a whole considers as wrong in order to provide a sliver of rationalization for the action.
>> The fallacy is you assume someone has to own something that can be cheaply duplicated.
I don't follow. If I make something, at that moment, I own the only copy of it in existence, (absent a prior arrangement, e.g., as part of an employment contract). As I said, who else could possibly own it? If the item cannot be duplicated, then any transfer of ownership, obviously, must involve the original copy. If the item can be duplicated -- books, software, etc. -- then, in addition, copies of the item can be made and ownership transferred to others. The original "master" stays with the original owner, who may alter it at will.
If someone steals an original, the theft is physical -- they took an actual object. If the theft is of a book or piece of software, the theft is of potential sales and potential control of distribution. Copyright exists to thwart that kind of theft.
And, yes, I think Slartibartfast can say you can't make copies of his fjiords. Technical means to do something have nothing to do with having a right to do it.
It is his fault if he steals something. Whether or not people buy software has nothing to do with it. If you take something that doesn't belong to you it's theft. The only way you can argue that it isn't is to deny people the right to own property. Even if you worship at the Church of Free Software, that doesn't give you the right to steal software released under another license.
It makes perfect sense to say that I continue to own something that has been illegally wrested from my control. To argue otherwise is to eliminate the basis for the ownership of property. I.e. you would decriminalize theft.
Ownership does not transfer to the thief. If you steal something from me, you may possess it and control it, but you do not own it. i remain the legitimate owner and you remain a thief.
Copyright and governments are not necessary to establish ownership of something I make. If I don't own it, who does? I own what I make until I transfer ownership to someone else.
You seem to arguing against the concept of private property and in favor of universal ownership of everything.
1. Of course, creators are at liberty to work for free. They are also at liberty to attempt to sell their products. One aproach does not negate the other. The point is that people must find support for their activities. An 'artist' may choose to find a patron, or draw support by keeping a day job, or by selling his output. In all cases, they have exchanged something of value for something in which they place more value, i.e., the capability to create.
2. Personally, I agree that publishers and distributors have the upper hand re: artists and performers. I also believe it is impossible, and pointless, to try to determine a one-size-fits-all equitable split between performer and publisher. No one forces performers to sign contracts. If the terms are unfair, they can choose not to sign. Whether they sign or not has nothing to do with their right to attempt to sell their products.
3. Publishers pay royalties to artists because the contracts they sign with artists stipulate that royalties will be paid. If pblishers could negotiate royalties away, I'm sure they would. Likewise, if artists could triple royalty payments, I'm sure they would. In all cases, the contract represents an agreement between two parties to exchange resources.
Say I write a book. I sell that book to a publisher. We have agreed to exchange resources. I have relinquished certain rights and attributes of my ownership to that publisher. The publisher now has the right to make copies of my book and market them. My contract with the publisher is likely to stipulate that I receive a royalty for each book sold, as part of the resource exchange arrangement specified in the contract. I can no longer sell the book to a publisher, because I no longer own it. I may opt to continue to write books in hopes of selling them to publishers. Meanwhile, the publisher continues to attempt to make money by selling more copies of my book, which they now own.
Now, say I dig holes for a living. I "contract" with someone to dig holes in return for some form of payment, i.e. an exchange of resources. When one hole is completed, the people who are paying me own that hole. I can no longer derive revenue from the creation of that hole. If I want to continue to make money, I must continue to dig holes, or attempt to convince someone to pay me royalties for their continuing use of that hole. (Unlikely in the case of a hole digger, but quite likely if we expand the cconstruction metaphor to include someone who creates new office buildings. In that situation, rent is the effective equivalent of royalties.)
I think it is possible to agree that the "Content Cartel" is distorting copyrright legislation to its own advantage without also agreeing to with your other positions.
To argue that a piece of software or other digital product is just a "collection of bits" is extreme oversimplification. Digital products are not random collections of bits anymore than books are random collections of letters. It seems obvious to me that if I create something -- a computer program or a carved wooden toy -- that full ownership remains with me until I take some action to alter that situation. Ownership of the "ideas" -- as simply ideas -- manifested in the product is a different issue. But, my creation is not an idea and it is more than a random collection of bits or material. It is something that I shaped in a particular pattern. I may have carved my toy according to my idea of, say, a rocket ship. I may have carved my software according to my idea of several algorithms. I cannot claim ownership of the idea of a rocket ship, nor can I claim ownership of the algorithms I used. But, I can quite justifiably claim ownership of my wooden representation of a rocketship. I can quite justifiably claim ownership of my the code I created to implement those algorithms and the resulting manifestation in an organized binary file of unique form and structure.
Arguing for or against these positions based on assumptions about what notions are legal fictions and what notions are gorunded in so-called natural law is pointless. All human interaction is based on mutual acceptance of "fictitious" rules and principles which have nothing to do with natural law, whatever that is.
My rights as creator and owner take precedence over copyright, etc. Those do not come into play until and unless I decide to make copies of my work and market or otherwise distribute those copies.
Say, for example, that I develop a new Linux utility. I create it, I own it, and I use it. As long as I do not distribute copies to anyone else, none of these issues come into play. If I do choose to distribute copies, I can do that under any of a number of licensing schemes, all of which transfer varying degrees of ownership and usage rights of the copies. I retain full ownership of the original utlility and can do with it as I please.
The length of the current copyright periods are far too long, but that's not what this is about. This is about/.'ers arguing against the notion of copyright and intellectual property in any form.
I don't believe intellectual property is an aritificial construct. Regardless of the date the notion was enshrined in theU.S. legal system, people have always had ownership of whatever they create when they work. until they relinquish ownership. For some, their product is simply manual labor, but they retain ownership of it until they agree to sell use of their labor to another party. Others may engage in more cerebral activity that results in the creation of a book, a piece of music, etc. They own that product and can do whatever they want with it. Typically, they want to make money so they sell their product to a publisher.
I understand the parent post. I just disagree with it. As the creator of a product -- a program, a book, whatever -- I have rights in that product that remain with me until I transfer ownership of the product -- not a copy -- to another party.
I am aware that some developers feel that giving away a product they created and deriving revenue by selling their knowledge of the product is somehow more ethical than mass marketing the product itself. I see no ethical superiority in either approach.
Agree that a number of corporations have attempted to distort intellectual property, copyright and patents to their own benefit and to the detriment of the public.
But I disagree that the only benefit coming to me "for being first" as a creator of a product is the ability to sell my expertise in that product. If I create something, I do not give up my ownership, and relinquish all rights and interests implied by ownership, the first time I sell or give away a copy of my work. I own what I create until I transfer ownership to another party. I may choose to sell my creation outright to another party, i.e., receiving payment and relinquishing all future rights and interests in the product. I might also choose to market as many copies of the product as possible, relying on traditional copyright to give me legal recourse if others market duplicate copies of my work. And, in the case of digital products, I might also protect my rights and interests as the owner of the product by adopting a licensing scheme that allows transfer and use of copies of the product to others without destroying my rights and interests as creator and owner of the original work.
>>...reasonable people today are making the argument that our current copyright and patent laws are, on balance, impeding the progress of art, literature and science.
Agree. But I don't seem many reasonable posts on/. about copyright, patents and IP. Just rants and unsupportable stretching of open source/free software dogma to all forms of human interaction and exchange.
You have every right to try and sell me those six holes. And you have every right, however misguided, to expect that I will pay you for your efforts. Likewise, I have every right to ignore you.
To cut to the chase, I think any imagined economic structure that assumes people can't attempt to sell the product of their labors -- whether you are digging holes, teaching school, writing code or creating art that rivals Michelanglo -- is absurdly utopian and not worthy of serious consideration.
So, you're claiming that artists work for the sheer love of it and have no need to or interest in selling their products? You must believe artists are somehow different than the rest of us.
As for developers, I don't see any difference between "have a buyer for their program" and "hope to force people to pay for that program". You write a program, you sell the program. (You aren't claiming that developers don't have a right to put their programs in shrink-wrapped boxes and retail them, are you?)
Everyone has a right to make something and try to sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
The NYT's editorial will give Linux's profile a bit of a nudge, but I have to think that the biggest single push toward consumer popularity would come from an AOL client for Linux. I know the combination of Linux and AOL is anathema to a lot of folks, but tens of millions of AOL users won't consider moving to Linux until AOL does.
My guess: they don't know about it. Posting entire NYT articles and editorials isn't likely to be seen as fair use, and deprives them of revenue at their site, so they'd have reason to send /. a cease-and-desist letter. That would actually be interesting: Would /. management have to take responsibility for what's published here?
I gotta tell you that I've had my Mac for all of two months (my Linux machine is sitting unplugged over in the corner), and I just don't care about any of the issues you raise. They obviously really annoy lots of other folks, though. But, in the end, none of those issues have any affect on how I use my computer.
After several years of using Linux, I decided one day that I was spending too much time tweaking and adjusting Linux. I can afford a Mac, so I bought one. I've lost zero capability and get more done faster. As the cliche goes, your mileage may vary.
We can tell what elements reside in stars. Why doubt that the same technology can tell us what resides in planets orbiting those stars? You don't have to build a visual map of an object to tell what it's made of.
Your point of view is often premised by a commitment to free software and open source as important agents of social change. That's a valid frame of reference, but one I don't share. They are interesting and important software development and distribution tools, but I think that's about it.
O'Reilly's role in open source doesn't compel him to ignore other developments or to espouse open source solutions for all situations. If he did, he would be acting in a partisan, quasi-political manner. Since he does not act or speak in that way -- particularly after he publicly doubted the wisdom of forcing the State of California to trade one software monopoly for another -- he takes unjustified abuse here and elsewhere from open source partisans.
As a publisher and writer, O'Reilly is not obligated to ensure that all possible points of view and opinion are represented in each single piece of material he posts to his company's site. No media or news organization has that obligation. If anyone had that obligation, we do, as consumers. If we really want a well-balanced diet of news and information (and most people don't) it is up to us to take information from a variety of sources. He's written two openly anecdotal pieces about Linux users migrating to OS X, not two impartial assessments of the relative strengths and weakness of all operating systems. That migration doesn't imply that Linux is a failure. It just implies that people will use what appeals to them and that Linux, unsurprisingly, is not a universal answer. Sure, the email is all pro-OS X. That's to be expected in a piece that deliberately looks at happy OS X users.
(In essence, I don't understand why some people get so upset about Apple and OS X. Or, why someone would feel a need to write the Freshmeat piece. Why all this consternation about whether or not is a 'real" Unix? Why fuss about some files that aren't where you expect to find them? Why do so many people castigate Apple and then go on a rant about the price of a Mac? Who cares about all that? None of that stuff is important. These things are just operating systems. In the end, they all do the same thing in almost identical fashion, just like Fords and Toyotas.)
That's another part of the dogma that keeps Linux off desktops. Software can be developed for any bloody platform, not just Linux. When someone says 'Oh boy! Linux gives me the freedom to develop any app I want!", they're just mouthing disingenuous propaganda.
What potential Linux users hear is this: "If I want that program, I'll have to learn to program myself, or wait for some anonymous Linux developers to do it for me."
So the choice becomes:
1. Quit my day job and take a couple of years learning to be a competent developer;
2. Wait for someone else to write what I want for Linux;
3. Keep on using a commercial platform and shop around.
Guess which option wins.
Suppose that I, by some improbable miracle, have a brainstorm that I can translate into a product that will sell in the millions, making me wealthy in the process. Let's also say that one day I have too much to drink and blab it all to someone in a bar. Then, that person takes my idea and gets his products to market before I can. As a result, his taking of my idea has cost me significant gain. How the IP laws are written, or even if they exist at all, would change nothing in this scenario. Ideas exist and have value absent IP legislation.
Umm..it's about 54 feet long, and hollow. The moon is about 2100 miles in diameter and pretty solid. I think it can take the jolt.
You seem to expect O'Reilly to act as a shill for open source. Why does O'Reilly's position as a book publisher mandate that he is not allowed an opinion? Or that he is obligated to behave in a fashion approved by open source dogmatics? He is under no obligation to even try and give any consideration to anyone's opinions about ODX, good, bad, or indifferent. He's simply making the point that a number of Linux users have dropped that OS and moved to OS X. No one except fantatics cares if OS X is r-e-a-l-l-y Unix or not or if buying a Mac threatens the open source movement. There are people who think having religious opinions about operating systems makes about as much sense as having religious opinions about automobile transmissions.
Besides, if you'd read the piece, you'd see that it contains criticism of Apple as well as praise.
China is not a democracy. The Chinese government exists by virtue of the Chinese Communist Party's military victory in 1949, not by any sense of popular electoral will or sovereignty. As a one-party state buttressed by military power, they cannot risk the free flow of information among the Chinese people. Hence, their attempts to control access to internet sites. This is completely in keeping with the Chinese government's and the Chinese Communist Party's traditional control of media and information.
Governments seldom engage in rash acts to improve the lot of people in other countries. They commonly act in what they believe is in the interests of their country and themselves. That is what governments do; it is naive to imagine otherwise. The oppression of human rights in China is wrong, but that fact does not pose an immediate threat to the U.S. In any case, what would be gained for the U.S. to threaten military action against China?
The Bush administration believes Iraq does pose a threat to the U.S., citing Saddam Hussein's behavior pattern with considerable justification. This includes invading Kuwait, gassing his own countrymen, launching a war on Iran that cost more than one million lives, creating and using a vicious internal secret police, etc. In particular, there's little convincing evidence that Saddam would not use nuclear weapons if he had them. China has had nuclear weapons for decades and has acted responsibly vis-a-vis those weapons. You will find very few people -- inside and outside the U.S. Government -- who believe Saddam would behave equally responsibly.
Without IP law, there can be no theft of an idea. Ideas can only be copied. No one can deprive you of an idea. Any potential benefit and gain from being sole owner of an idea exists solely because of IP laws.
I think that's largely semantics. Whether they "steal" or "copy" it, anyone who takes my idea potentially deprives me of gain I would otherwise have received from exploitation of that idea.
>> So I guess all these free software programmers are in it for the money?
No, they aren't. But all those other programmers are in it for the money. The free software notion is an interesting development and distribution model. But it is not the only viable and legitimate model. In addition, it is a development model that has yet to demonstrate that it can completely substitute, in quality, quantity, and originality, for commercial models. Most importantly, the free software model does not map to broader human economic activities.
My suggestions are to shorten the term of copyrights, repeal the DMCA and add a clause to copyright law stating that if the method you choose to copy-protect your work prevents fair use, then you lose your copyright protection.
Sounds reasonable to me. We can agree that IP laws and copyright length have been unfairly extended in violation of the intent of the legislation.
>> If you have an idea, and somebody else uses that idea, you still have that idea to use as you wish. You have lost nothing.
The theft of my idea deprives me of potential benefit and gain as the sole owner of the idea. While it is true that I, personally, may still use my idea after someone has stolen it, that kind of personal use is not equivalent to the use I might make of it had I retained exclusive ownership. For example, say I develop a unique idea that can be the basis for a working perpetual motion machine. My potential benefit and gain from the further development of that notion is obvious. If someone steals the idea from me and works independently to develop the machine, their theft has deprived me of enormous benefit and gain.
>> Without copyright law, the physical book you hold in your hand is yours, but the copies somone else makes of it aren't and don't make your book any less valuable since you can still use the book you have.
Only true if the only value derived from the book is from the information it contains. An author has a right to attempt to sell his book, thereby dreving value from it. Copyright protects that right. Lack of copyright negates that right and deprives authors of the financial potential of their work.
In general, I think your argument that property has no existence outside the law to be specious, and your assertion that changing copyright and property law would benefit society to be equally specious. The primary impact on society would be a tremendous reduction in "creative" activity as every author, musician, developer, etc., who depends on the revenue generated from their work moves on to something else.
>> ...doesn't mean it's wrong in any absolute sense though.
So what? The law doesn't recognize anyone's "absolute sense" of right and wrong, even if such a thing actually exists. You can't defend or justify an illegal action by claiming that you have an absolute sense that it is not wrong. There are lots of people who thought the murder they commited was morally acceptable. That doesn't make it legal.
You're simply trying to justify an action that society as a whole considers as wrong in order to provide a sliver of rationalization for the action.
>> The fallacy is you assume someone has to own something that can be cheaply duplicated.
I don't follow. If I make something, at that moment, I own the only copy of it in existence, (absent a prior arrangement, e.g., as part of an employment contract). As I said, who else could possibly own it? If the item cannot be duplicated, then any transfer of ownership, obviously, must involve the original copy. If the item can be duplicated -- books, software, etc. -- then, in addition, copies of the item can be made and ownership transferred to others. The original "master" stays with the original owner, who may alter it at will.
If someone steals an original, the theft is physical -- they took an actual object. If the theft is of a book or piece of software, the theft is of potential sales and potential control of distribution. Copyright exists to thwart that kind of theft.
And, yes, I think Slartibartfast can say you can't make copies of his fjiords. Technical means to do something have nothing to do with having a right to do it.
It is his fault if he steals something. Whether or not people buy software has nothing to do with it. If you take something that doesn't belong to you it's theft. The only way you can argue that it isn't is to deny people the right to own property. Even if you worship at the Church of Free Software, that doesn't give you the right to steal software released under another license.
It makes perfect sense to say that I continue to own something that has been illegally wrested from my control. To argue otherwise is to eliminate the basis for the ownership of property. I.e. you would decriminalize theft.
Ownership does not transfer to the thief. If you steal something from me, you may possess it and control it, but you do not own it. i remain the legitimate owner and you remain a thief.
Copyright and governments are not necessary to establish ownership of something I make. If I don't own it, who does? I own what I make until I transfer ownership to someone else.
You seem to arguing against the concept of private property and in favor of universal ownership of everything.
1. Of course, creators are at liberty to work for free. They are also at liberty to attempt to sell their products. One aproach does not negate the other. The point is that people must find support for their activities. An 'artist' may choose to find a patron, or draw support by keeping a day job, or by selling his output. In all cases, they have exchanged something of value for something in which they place more value, i.e., the capability to create.
2. Personally, I agree that publishers and distributors have the upper hand re: artists and performers. I also believe it is impossible, and pointless, to try to determine a one-size-fits-all equitable split between performer and publisher. No one forces performers to sign contracts. If the terms are unfair, they can choose not to sign. Whether they sign or not has nothing to do with their right to attempt to sell their products.
3. Publishers pay royalties to artists because the contracts they sign with artists stipulate that royalties will be paid. If pblishers could negotiate royalties away, I'm sure they would. Likewise, if artists could triple royalty payments, I'm sure they would. In all cases, the contract represents an agreement between two parties to exchange resources.
Say I write a book. I sell that book to a publisher. We have agreed to exchange resources. I have relinquished certain rights and attributes of my ownership to that publisher. The publisher now has the right to make copies of my book and market them. My contract with the publisher is likely to stipulate that I receive a royalty for each book sold, as part of the resource exchange arrangement specified in the contract. I can no longer sell the book to a publisher, because I no longer own it. I may opt to continue to write books in hopes of selling them to publishers. Meanwhile, the publisher continues to attempt to make money by selling more copies of my book, which they now own.
Now, say I dig holes for a living. I "contract" with someone to dig holes in return for some form of payment, i.e. an exchange of resources. When one hole is completed, the people who are paying me own that hole. I can no longer derive revenue from the creation of that hole. If I want to continue to make money, I must continue to dig holes, or attempt to convince someone to pay me royalties for their continuing use of that hole. (Unlikely in the case of a hole digger, but quite likely if we expand the cconstruction metaphor to include someone who creates new office buildings. In that situation, rent is the effective equivalent of royalties.)
I think it is possible to agree that the "Content Cartel" is distorting copyrright legislation to its own advantage without also agreeing to with your other positions.
To argue that a piece of software or other digital product is just a "collection of bits" is extreme oversimplification. Digital products are not random collections of bits anymore than books are random collections of letters. It seems obvious to me that if I create something -- a computer program or a carved wooden toy -- that full ownership remains with me until I take some action to alter that situation. Ownership of the "ideas" -- as simply ideas -- manifested in the product is a different issue. But, my creation is not an idea and it is more than a random collection of bits or material. It is something that I shaped in a particular pattern. I may have carved my toy according to my idea of, say, a rocket ship. I may have carved my software according to my idea of several algorithms. I cannot claim ownership of the idea of a rocket ship, nor can I claim ownership of the algorithms I used. But, I can quite justifiably claim ownership of my wooden representation of a rocketship. I can quite justifiably claim ownership of my the code I created to implement those algorithms and the resulting manifestation in an organized binary file of unique form and structure.
Arguing for or against these positions based on assumptions about what notions are legal fictions and what notions are gorunded in so-called natural law is pointless. All human interaction is based on mutual acceptance of "fictitious" rules and principles which have nothing to do with natural law, whatever that is.
My rights as creator and owner take precedence over copyright, etc. Those do not come into play until and unless I decide to make copies of my work and market or otherwise distribute those copies.
/.'ers arguing against the notion of copyright and intellectual property in any form.
Say, for example, that I develop a new Linux utility. I create it, I own it, and I use it. As long as I do not distribute copies to anyone else, none of these issues come into play. If I do choose to distribute copies, I can do that under any of a number of licensing schemes, all of which transfer varying degrees of ownership and usage rights of the copies. I retain full ownership of the original utlility and can do with it as I please.
The length of the current copyright periods are far too long, but that's not what this is about. This is about
I don't believe intellectual property is an aritificial construct. Regardless of the date the notion was enshrined in theU.S. legal system, people have always had ownership of whatever they create when they work. until they relinquish ownership. For some, their product is simply manual labor, but they retain ownership of it until they agree to sell use of their labor to another party. Others may engage in more cerebral activity that results in the creation of a book, a piece of music, etc. They own that product and can do whatever they want with it. Typically, they want to make money so they sell their product to a publisher.
I understand the parent post. I just disagree with it. As the creator of a product -- a program, a book, whatever -- I have rights in that product that remain with me until I transfer ownership of the product -- not a copy -- to another party.
I am aware that some developers feel that giving away a product they created and deriving revenue by selling their knowledge of the product is somehow more ethical than mass marketing the product itself. I see no ethical superiority in either approach.
Agree that a number of corporations have attempted to distort intellectual property, copyright and patents to their own benefit and to the detriment of the public.
But I disagree that the only benefit coming to me "for being first" as a creator of a product is the ability to sell my expertise in that product. If I create something, I do not give up my ownership, and relinquish all rights and interests implied by ownership, the first time I sell or give away a copy of my work. I own what I create until I transfer ownership to another party. I may choose to sell my creation outright to another party, i.e., receiving payment and relinquishing all future rights and interests in the product. I might also choose to market as many copies of the product as possible, relying on traditional copyright to give me legal recourse if others market duplicate copies of my work. And, in the case of digital products, I might also protect my rights and interests as the owner of the product by adopting a licensing scheme that allows transfer and use of copies of the product to others without destroying my rights and interests as creator and owner of the original work.
>> ...reasonable people today are making the argument that our current copyright and patent laws are, on balance, impeding the progress of art, literature and science.
/. about copyright, patents and IP. Just rants and unsupportable stretching of open source/free software dogma to all forms of human interaction and exchange.
Agree. But I don't seem many reasonable posts on
You have every right to try and sell me those six holes. And you have every right, however misguided, to expect that I will pay you for your efforts. Likewise, I have every right to ignore you.
To cut to the chase, I think any imagined economic structure that assumes people can't attempt to sell the product of their labors -- whether you are digging holes, teaching school, writing code or creating art that rivals Michelanglo -- is absurdly utopian and not worthy of serious consideration.
So, you're claiming that artists work for the sheer love of it and have no need to or interest in selling their products? You must believe artists are somehow different than the rest of us.
As for developers, I don't see any difference between "have a buyer for their program" and "hope to force people to pay for that program". You write a program, you sell the program. (You aren't claiming that developers don't have a right to put their programs in shrink-wrapped boxes and retail them, are you?)
Everyone has a right to make something and try to sell it.