If the law determines that only the fact of downloading has to be shown, not that a file went to a specific individual, then ISP's don't need to be involved. It's easier to show that files are being downloaded from a given server than it is to show that someone in particular is downloading them.
So, let me see. If you offer to share something but no one takes it, it isn't considered distribution.
In other words, if you post copyrighted material on the net but no one downloads anything, you're fine.
A flaky decision. Wait for the appeal.
Re:who owns copyright in a open source project
on
GPL Hard to Enforce?
·
· Score: 1
>> All rights are derived from force or strength.
I don't believe that. Perhaps you are confusing "right" with "ability". I would cast it this way: A lion has a right to eat. A zebra has a right to eat. The zebra is able to eat grass. The lion is able to eat zebra. The ability and the right are two distinct qualities with no direct relationship.
If I create something, the first, original copy belongs to me. Every capability inherent in that creation belongs to me. It is impossible for anyone else to possess those things because that would require their awareness of my creation before it existed. If someone wants to acquire that original copy, they can do it in two ways: 1) I can willingly transfer ownership to them; 2) they can acquire ownership against my will. If someone wants to exploit one of the qualities inherent in my creation, such as the ability to make a copy of it, they can likewise do that with or without my permission.
It is the latter circumstance that copyright law codifies. All copying of a work flows back to the orginal creator's decision regarding who has or does not have permission to make copies. If you have transferred to a publisher the right to copy your book, but have not explicity given me permission to do likewise, it is, in the first instance, unethical for me to copy your book. In the second instance, copyright law make that act illegal, as well.
Well, that was my point, after all. Copyright codifies the natural right of a work's creator to control distribution and copying of that work.
Re:who owns copyright in a open source project
on
GPL Hard to Enforce?
·
· Score: 1
Copyright didn't give vendors control or ownrtship of code. They already had control of the code: they owned it (wrote it, most likely). Copyright does not give anyone control of anything. It simply acknowledges and enforces existing ownership and control.
Absent copyright, they could have maintained control of the code by locking it away securely and distributing their product in binary form only. In many regards, this is only an issue because Bell chose to distribute source code for Unix. They would have been within their rights not to.
A recording of a piece of music is obviously not the same as the score for that music published on a piece of sheet music.
Of course, sharing can involve copying. But, the vast majority of illegal copying that is done under the guise of "sharing" is certainly never shared with anyone. If I want to share something with you, I will give it to you. If you decide you want to share it, and come and take it, or a copy, without my permission, that's illegal.
In my experience, most developers do, in fact, copy as much as they can to avoid reinventing the wheel. (That's one of the central tenets of Unix.) What greater roadblock to innovation can there be than not thinking out a problem for yourself?
I don't see IP law as impeding innovation or progress in any form. Nor do I see the hypthetical absence of IP law advancing innovation in any way.
In any case, like copyright, IP law simply codifies basic natural right and behavior: What I make belongs to me, not you, and you can't copy it unless I allow it.
Re:who owns copyright in a open source project
on
GPL Hard to Enforce?
·
· Score: 1
It isn't copyright itself that was the impetus for free software and the GPL. Rather, it was the unique nature of software code and the intent of commercial software vendors to maintain control of their products.
Software vendors do not sell code. They sell binary files that result from the compilation of the code. Given the code and a compiler, most anyone can go into business selling duplicates of their products.
To my knowledge, only one other copyrightable endeavor shares that quality: an intermediate creative work is needed to produce the final product.
Books, plays, stories, etc., have no intermediate stage. Copyright does not prevent their sharing. They are widely shared among friends, by libraries, etc. (Note: copying is not sharing.)
The exception is music. Music publishers typically publish sheet music containing the scores of works performed and recorded by their artists. Like books, people are free to share this sheet music. They are free to perform the scores. Like software, the score, the music's "code", can transformed into a binary file. Unlike software, however, the transformation cannot create a duplicate of the product released by the music company.
So, we need to be careful when we talk about they threat copyright poses to innovation because it allegedly thwarts sharing. Typically, in fact, it doesn't. Only to the extent that lack of access to source code keeps developer's from innovating can this be considered true for the special case of software. And a good case could be made that more innovation would happen if developers had to solve problems on their own rather than copying the work of others.
I simply meant that you'll stand a much better chance of enforcing your copyright if you take the steps needed to assert it in the first place, whether that is an explicit claim of copyright or a claim of ownership. If you do neither of those and someone else subsequently claims copyright, you're facing a legal battle without the most important evidence of either your copyright or authorship.
Copyright isn't about making anything uncopyable". It's about protecting and enforcing the creator of a product's right to determine who is allowed to copy his work.
Re:who owns copyright in a open source project
on
GPL Hard to Enforce?
·
· Score: 1
Credits aren't copyrights. For all anyone knows, the person who wrote the code transferred copyright to someone else, who isn't listed in the credits.
Follow the advice of the article and explicitly claim copyright, otherwise some can mount a challenge.
Ironic, isn't it. that the so many people rant about copyright yet the GPL depends on it.
>> "From the moment they realise they are part of the evolution of society and try to influence it, we will be moving in the right direction."
A lot of ideological assumptions are in that statement, which not everyone shares. Such as: corporations are inherently bad; small is always better than big; etc., etc.
Whatever relationship exists between open source developers and corporations is there because those open source developers want it to be there. Have any developers been conscripted to labor for dorporations? Have they been abducted off the street and tied to their desks?
Sometimes I think these people believe the Industrial Revolution was a mistiake, that we'd all be happier living in little stone huts in little villages, toiling in the fields and milking the cows, all the while smiling appreciatively at all the green grass. Of course, they'd be in charge because they know best. OR, so they keep telling us.
Come to think of it. maybe the first successful disposable computer will be one that cannot be upgraded. When new (really new) software is available, the only way to get it would be to buy a new box.
Make the price cheap enough so people wouldn't regret trashing it every year or so. Sell it naked, without a keyboard or monitor. Physically, make it unobtrusive and pleasing to look at. (PC boxes are noisy and ugly.)
Game consoles already meet most of the hardware requirements, and are close to the right price point.
I agree most people would continue to use a computer until it couldn't do what they needed it to do. Then they'd trash it. The key point about "throwaway-ability" is that it is a price point.
I'll admit I've never known anyone who paid a tech to upgrade or do installs on their home PC. I have known a few people who stopped using their PC rather than hassling with upgrades.
For most of the folks reading/., installing and upgrading software is just part of the normal routine. That's because we're interested in technology and computing. Frankly, we put up with a lot of crap that other people wouldn't endure. (Like Linux's fixation on spawning incompatiable packaging and updating schemes.)
I'm convinced that most people have no more desire to upgrade or install new software than they do to upgrade their refrigerator. When they bought the box, it was loaded with software. From their perspective, upgrades simply mean someone sold them software that wasn't good enough in the first place. (Why else would the vendor need to do an upgrade, they might ask.)
I'm not arguing that updates and new installs aren't inevitable. I'm arguing that most people think they're a royal pain. A cheap throwaway computer that handles updates completely in the background, with the only indication to the user coming when an updated app displays an alert, would be a nice product.
Think something like a $199 Mac Mini. Think Apple contracting with a national ISP to offer purchasers a combined broadband/iTunes connection for $25 per month. Think Apple using that net to silently push updates.
Cheap throwaway computers are at least as likely to be sold by Microsoft as anyone else, probably more likely.
As for the "end" of proprietary software, not likely. What most people would really like to see is the end of software, proprietary or not. Most people don't want to install new software. From their rather logical perspective, software is as much a part of the machine they bought as the hard drive.
I really think most people would be quite happy to buy a computer that never needed new software at all, including updates.
I have no issues with someone being being deported because of links with declared enemies. That's one of the reason deportation exists and one of the reasons people compile and corelate lists of people associated with al-Qaeda.
>> You argue that you have not experienced a loss of liberty based on your personal experience.
No, I didn't. I'm not arguing out of personal experience. Certainly not from personal experience of ID cards, which do not exist. If members of the government, or anyone else, want to reduce someone's freedoms, they will do so whether or not ID cards exist. I've asked you to specifically detail how the existence of ID cards would constrain someone's liberties. You have not done that.
You line of thought, such as it is, would, for example, lead to the conclusion that obtaining a passport will threaten an individual's liberties. Do you, then, oppose passports?
As for my question about "additional power" ID cards would provide to the government, that is for you to answer, since you are makng the argument that ID cards will enable government to constrain our freedoms.
However, if asked, I would accept the terrorist threat as one strong reason to be able to correctly and positively identify people. I certainly fear them a great deal more than I fear government.
In fact, we already have a collection of identity tools that can be used to track our purchases and our movements. I don't feel threaten by those, and I don't see any reason to feel threatened by an ID card. I don't see any reason why anyone else should, either.
I can only conclude that your real paranoia is directed at the institution of government itself, regardless of who's actually governing at any given time.
Again, how would an ID card threaten our freedoms? Don't rant about the evils of government, or make vague allusions to "political dissidents". If someone is alreadu walking around with several forms of ID in his pocket, just what's supposed to happen when an ID card is added?
First, liberty is only "for" each individual. Society is, after all, only a word used to describe some number of people. No society is free if the individuals who comprise it are not free.
In other words, society exists for the benefit of the individual, not the other way around.
A "population", as you put it, cannot "think, speak, associate and travel". Only individuals can do those things. And, what "some all powerful entity watching over their shoulders" do you have in mind and what does it have to do with ID cards?
So, again, I ask, how, specifically, would an ID card threaten my liberty? How is this "a system designed to curtail the freedoms of whoever the people in power consider enemies"? What "additional power" is going to be given to the government?
I'm not "blithely accepting" anything. I've yet to read a convincing argument that ID cards would threaten my freedoms. You're assertions (they don't merit description as an "argument") seem based on your fears that individuals within the government will, in some fashion you seem unable to explain, manipulate ID cards to your disadvantage. If so, then your real fears should be directed toward government, not the cards.
I don't understand why people fear ID cards so much. What liberty is at risk? Specifically, not just the usual paranoia.
I have a driver's license, a Social Security card, a passport, a security clearance, several bank accounts, and several credit cards; I seldom use cash which means almost every purchase I make, and where I make it, is recorded somewhere; if someone wants to know where I go when I travel, they can; my medical history is freely available to my physicians; my credit history and rating are available to just about anyone who wants to pay for it.
And yet, I don't perceive any loss of liberty. None of those things I've listed has ever stopped me from doing what I want to do.
So, tell me, how is one more card supposed to ruin my life?
It would be rather nice if Brits and Americans could travel to and from each other's country with just an identity card, much as I understand is possible today within the EU.
Might save a lot of time stacked up at passport control.
Shops in my area have been trying to discourage wi-fi poachers for several months. So many seats would be taken by laptop-toters that potential customers walked away because they couldn't find a place to sit.
So, some have instituted time limits for laptop use without a purchase, while others have cordoned off a few tables for laptop use.
It's a double-edged sword for the shops, who use wi-fi to draw in more customers, but too many poachers mean paying customers leave.
Slashdot Mirror
If the law determines that only the fact of downloading has to be shown, not that a file went to a specific individual, then ISP's don't need to be involved. It's easier to show that files are being downloaded from a given server than it is to show that someone in particular is downloading them.
So, let me see. If you offer to share something but no one takes it, it isn't considered distribution.
In other words, if you post copyrighted material on the net but no one downloads anything, you're fine.
A flaky decision. Wait for the appeal.
>> All rights are derived from force or strength.
I don't believe that. Perhaps you are confusing "right" with "ability". I would cast it this way: A lion has a right to eat. A zebra has a right to eat. The zebra is able to eat grass. The lion is able to eat zebra. The ability and the right are two distinct qualities with no direct relationship.
If I create something, the first, original copy belongs to me. Every capability inherent in that creation belongs to me. It is impossible for anyone else to possess those things because that would require their awareness of my creation before it existed. If someone wants to acquire that original copy, they can do it in two ways: 1) I can willingly transfer ownership to them; 2) they can acquire ownership against my will. If someone wants to exploit one of the qualities inherent in my creation, such as the ability to make a copy of it, they can likewise do that with or without my permission.
It is the latter circumstance that copyright law codifies. All copying of a work flows back to the orginal creator's decision regarding who has or does not have permission to make copies. If you have transferred to a publisher the right to copy your book, but have not explicity given me permission to do likewise, it is, in the first instance, unethical for me to copy your book. In the second instance, copyright law make that act illegal, as well.
Well, that was my point, after all. Copyright codifies the natural right of a work's creator to control distribution and copying of that work.
Copyright didn't give vendors control or ownrtship of code. They already had control of the code: they owned it (wrote it, most likely). Copyright does not give anyone control of anything. It simply acknowledges and enforces existing ownership and control.
Absent copyright, they could have maintained control of the code by locking it away securely and distributing their product in binary form only. In many regards, this is only an issue because Bell chose to distribute source code for Unix. They would have been within their rights not to.
A recording of a piece of music is obviously not the same as the score for that music published on a piece of sheet music.
Of course, sharing can involve copying. But, the vast majority of illegal copying that is done under the guise of "sharing" is certainly never shared with anyone. If I want to share something with you, I will give it to you. If you decide you want to share it, and come and take it, or a copy, without my permission, that's illegal.
In my experience, most developers do, in fact, copy as much as they can to avoid reinventing the wheel. (That's one of the central tenets of Unix.) What greater roadblock to innovation can there be than not thinking out a problem for yourself?
I don't see IP law as impeding innovation or progress in any form. Nor do I see the hypthetical absence of IP law advancing innovation in any way.
In any case, like copyright, IP law simply codifies basic natural right and behavior: What I make belongs to me, not you, and you can't copy it unless I allow it.
It isn't copyright itself that was the impetus for free software and the GPL. Rather, it was the unique nature of software code and the intent of commercial software vendors to maintain control of their products.
Software vendors do not sell code. They sell binary files that result from the compilation of the code. Given the code and a compiler, most anyone can go into business selling duplicates of their products.
To my knowledge, only one other copyrightable endeavor shares that quality: an intermediate creative work is needed to produce the final product.
Books, plays, stories, etc., have no intermediate stage. Copyright does not prevent their sharing. They are widely shared among friends, by libraries, etc. (Note: copying is not sharing.)
The exception is music. Music publishers typically publish sheet music containing the scores of works performed and recorded by their artists. Like books, people are free to share this sheet music. They are free to perform the scores. Like software, the score, the music's "code", can transformed into a binary file. Unlike software, however, the transformation cannot create a duplicate of the product released by the music company.
So, we need to be careful when we talk about they threat copyright poses to innovation because it allegedly thwarts sharing. Typically, in fact, it doesn't. Only to the extent that lack of access to source code keeps developer's from innovating can this be considered true for the special case of software. And a good case could be made that more innovation would happen if developers had to solve problems on their own rather than copying the work of others.
Making something "uncopyable", i.e., unable to be copied, has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright law represents the legal framework needed to protect a work's creator's right to dispose of his work as he chooses.
I simply meant that you'll stand a much better chance of enforcing your copyright if you take the steps needed to assert it in the first place, whether that is an explicit claim of copyright or a claim of ownership. If you do neither of those and someone else subsequently claims copyright, you're facing a legal battle without the most important evidence of either your copyright or authorship.
Copyright isn't about making anything
uncopyable". It's about protecting and enforcing the creator of a product's right to determine who is allowed to copy his work.
Credits aren't copyrights. For all anyone knows, the person who wrote the code transferred copyright to someone else, who isn't listed in the credits.
Follow the advice of the article and explicitly claim copyright, otherwise some can mount a challenge.
Ironic, isn't it. that the so many people rant about copyright yet the GPL depends on it.
Yeah, Torvalds. Claimed in the format the article recommends.
This is common sense. If you don't explicitly claim copyright, your ability to assert copyright is at risk.
>> "From the moment they realise they are part of the evolution of society and try to influence it, we will be moving in the right direction."
A lot of ideological assumptions are in that statement, which not everyone shares. Such as: corporations are inherently bad; small is always better than big; etc., etc.
Whatever relationship exists between open source developers and corporations is there because those open source developers want it to be there. Have any developers been conscripted to labor for dorporations? Have they been abducted off the street and tied to their desks?
Sometimes I think these people believe the Industrial Revolution was a mistiake, that we'd all be happier living in little stone huts in little villages, toiling in the fields and milking the cows, all the while smiling appreciatively at all the green grass. Of course, they'd be in charge because they know best. OR, so they keep telling us.
Come to think of it. maybe the first successful disposable computer will be one that cannot be upgraded. When new (really new) software is available, the only way to get it would be to buy a new box.
Make the price cheap enough so people wouldn't regret trashing it every year or so. Sell it naked, without a keyboard or monitor. Physically, make it unobtrusive and pleasing to look at. (PC boxes are noisy and ugly.)
Game consoles already meet most of the hardware requirements, and are close to the right price point.
I agree most people would continue to use a computer until it couldn't do what they needed it to do. Then they'd trash it. The key point about "throwaway-ability" is that it is a price point.
I'll admit I've never known anyone who paid a tech to upgrade or do installs on their home PC. I have known a few people who stopped using their PC rather than hassling with upgrades.
You're missing my point, I think.
/., installing and upgrading software is just part of the normal routine. That's because we're interested in technology and computing. Frankly, we put up with a lot of crap that other people wouldn't endure. (Like Linux's fixation on spawning incompatiable packaging and updating schemes.)
For most of the folks reading
I'm convinced that most people have no more desire to upgrade or install new software than they do to upgrade their refrigerator. When they bought the box, it was loaded with software. From their perspective, upgrades simply mean someone sold them software that wasn't good enough in the first place. (Why else would the vendor need to do an upgrade, they might ask.)
I'm not arguing that updates and new installs aren't inevitable. I'm arguing that most people think they're a royal pain. A cheap throwaway computer that handles updates completely in the background, with the only indication to the user coming when an updated app displays an alert, would be a nice product.
Think something like a $199 Mac Mini. Think Apple contracting with a national ISP to offer purchasers a combined broadband/iTunes connection for $25 per month. Think Apple using that net to silently push updates.
Cheap throwaway computers are at least as likely to be sold by Microsoft as anyone else, probably more likely.
As for the "end" of proprietary software, not likely. What most people would really like to see is the end of software, proprietary or not. Most people don't want to install new software. From their rather logical perspective, software is as much a part of the machine they bought as the hard drive.
I really think most people would be quite happy to buy a computer that never needed new software at all, including updates.
Yeah, I know Phoenix. Used to live there. Might again, in the future. Nice city. So are the others you named.
I know Tempe, too. I just can't recall it having anything anyone from back East would recognize as a downtown, Mill Avenue notwithstanding.
But, I was being facetious. A little joke, you know.
Is it below 100 today? Worst I ever saw it was 118 at Sky Harbor.
>>downtown Tempe...
Where's that?
I have no issues with someone being being deported because of links with declared enemies. That's one of the reason deportation exists and one of the reasons people compile and corelate lists of people associated with al-Qaeda.
>> You argue that you have not experienced a loss of liberty based on your personal experience.
No, I didn't. I'm not arguing out of personal experience. Certainly not from personal experience of ID cards, which do not exist. If members of the government, or anyone else, want to reduce someone's freedoms, they will do so whether or not ID cards exist. I've asked you to specifically detail how the existence of ID cards would constrain someone's liberties. You have not done that.
You line of thought, such as it is, would, for example, lead to the conclusion that obtaining a passport will threaten an individual's liberties. Do you, then, oppose passports?
As for my question about "additional power" ID cards would provide to the government, that is for you to answer, since you are makng the argument that ID cards will enable government to constrain our freedoms.
However, if asked, I would accept the terrorist threat as one strong reason to be able to correctly and positively identify people. I certainly fear them a great deal more than I fear government.
In fact, we already have a collection of identity tools that can be used to track our purchases and our movements. I don't feel threaten by those, and I don't see any reason to feel threatened by an ID card. I don't see any reason why anyone else should, either.
I can only conclude that your real paranoia is directed at the institution of government itself, regardless of who's actually governing at any given time.
Again, how would an ID card threaten our freedoms?
Don't rant about the evils of government, or make vague allusions to "political dissidents". If someone is alreadu walking around with several forms of ID in his pocket, just what's supposed to happen when an ID card is added?
Well, you've failed to persuade me.
First, liberty is only "for" each individual. Society is, after all, only a word used to describe some number of people. No society is free if the individuals who comprise it are not free.
In other words, society exists for the benefit of the individual, not the other way around.
A "population", as you put it, cannot "think, speak, associate and travel". Only individuals can do those things. And, what "some all powerful entity watching over their shoulders" do you have in mind and what does it have to do with ID cards?
So, again, I ask, how, specifically, would an ID card threaten my liberty? How is this "a system designed to curtail the freedoms of whoever the people in power consider enemies"? What "additional power" is going to be given to the government?
I'm not "blithely accepting" anything. I've yet to read a convincing argument that ID cards would threaten my freedoms. You're assertions (they don't merit description as an "argument") seem based on your fears that individuals within the government will, in some fashion you seem unable to explain, manipulate ID cards to your disadvantage. If so, then your real fears should be directed toward government, not the cards.
Nice try at that fake quote. Lame, but nice.
I don't understand why people fear ID cards so much. What liberty is at risk? Specifically, not just the usual paranoia.
I have a driver's license, a Social Security card, a passport, a security clearance, several bank accounts, and several credit cards; I seldom use cash which means almost every purchase I make, and where I make it, is recorded somewhere; if someone wants to know where I go when I travel, they can; my medical history is freely available to my physicians; my credit history and rating are available to just about anyone who wants to pay for it.
And yet, I don't perceive any loss of liberty. None of those things I've listed has ever stopped me from doing what I want to do.
So, tell me, how is one more card supposed to ruin my life?
It would be rather nice if Brits and Americans could travel to and from each other's country with just an identity card, much as I understand is possible today within the EU.
Might save a lot of time stacked up at passport control.
Shops in my area have been trying to discourage wi-fi poachers for several months. So many seats would be taken by laptop-toters that potential customers walked away because they couldn't find a place to sit.
So, some have instituted time limits for laptop use without a purchase, while others have cordoned off a few tables for laptop use.
It's a double-edged sword for the shops, who use wi-fi to draw in more customers, but too many poachers mean paying customers leave.
Except that they're thieves. It's legal to buy products. It isn't legal to steal them.