You're focusing on the idea. I'm not. I'm talking about a book, a piece of music, a film, C++ code, etc. That's what I have absolute control of until I start transferring rights to it, especially the right to make and distribute copies. ("Fire" is obviously not a "work" in this regard, because it is not a symbolic representation.)
I agree that technology has made it much easier to copy and distribute information, but that doesn't alter the relationship between a work and its creator.
And, yes, following Applebee's recipe at home deprives them of revenue, presuming you would otherwise go to the restaurant for that dish.
The role of law is to protect, not create, those rights. Law attempts to do that, in large measure, by reconciling conflicting but legitimate rights. For example, the lion's right to eat the gazelle and the gazelle's right to not be eaten.
You don't need a legal system to establish that a person who creates something has all rights to it. How could rights to the "thing" possibly rest elsewhere if the "thing" did not previously exist?
If I create something (say, a book) I retain all rights to it until I decide differently. Let's say I decide to sign a contract with a publisher. In that contract, I exchange some, but not all, of my rights in my book for the publisher's skills and services. Whatever rights that I did not asign to the publisher remain with me. If another person buys a copy of my newly published book, that has no impact on the rights I retain.
Again, the flow of rights is from the work's creator -- where all rights initially reside -- to society, at the choice of the author. Rights in a work do not flow from society to the work's creator; society has no rights in that regard until the author transfers them.
I'm quite willing to acknowledge that you believe ideas can't be stolen. I believe that, too. But, an idea isn't what is stolen when copyright violations take place. The theft involves the unauthorized removal of all or part of an author's right to benefit from his work by controlling how the work is copied and distributed. To argue that it isn't theft because no physical property is involved is equivalent to arguing that I'm not a thief if I break into your bank's network and transfer your funds to my account.
An author has absolute control over his work until and unless he assigns all or some of those rights to others, such as a publisher. In other words, society isn't in a position to grant any rights to an author, inventor or creator because all the rights belong to the work's author. The "flow" of rights moves from the author to society, not vice versa.
>>... that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.
The theft involves the acquisition of an author's potential future gain derived from maintaining exclusive control of the copying and distribution of his work. Arguing that copyright infringement isn't theft because the author continues to hold his original work is simplistic and wrong.
To reiterate, the value due an author is not mere possession of the original work, but the potential for benefit and gain derived from the author's right to control how his work is copied and distributed. That's why copyright violations are theft, because the violator is stealing some of that potential.
As for Stallman, I agree that he has promoted an interesting software development model. I don't agree that failure to share code is unethical. I certainly don't agree that sharing someone else's code without their permission is ethical. And, I very much disagree when Stallman or anyone attempts to expand his software development notions into a broader philisophy with universal social relevance.
At heart, I believe a work's creator has absolute control over that work unless and until he sells/gives/relinquishes all or some of those rights to others. That transfer of certain rights in return for publication and marketing is the traditional way authors and others choose to be paid for their efforts.
>> What if I come in and just look at the clothes in your department store, then go home and sew up some copies for myself? Do I owe you money?
No, but if you do that and make thousands of knock-offs and start selling or giving them away, that's a different story. If you also put my name on your copies, it is counterfeiting.
>> ...the process of copying the information does not, in all but contrived circumstances, destroy the original...
I don't see the relevance of this focus on whether or not the original is destroyed. Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original.
>>...it's in everyones interest for people to have incentives to come up with new ideas, and so copyrights, patents, and to a lesser extent trademarks were created. But we should not forget that this is an artificial state, not a natural one...
Why is this artifical vs natural distinction important? I'm not even sure how to tell the difference. If you're arguing that it is natural for people to want to share anything they make with no expectation that others will reward them for their efforts, I'll disagree. People do want to share, but they also want to be rewarded and they want to control and manipulate their creations in order to exact the greated possible gain from others.
People in society have a infinite number of competitive and conficting interests. A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.
>> But now these sames laws have been perverted...
The law has not become "perverted". SCO hasn't changed a single word of any law, and won't. They're simply suing. Seems to me they would have been just as able to sue in 1803 as they are in 2003.
SCO's behavior, or their reputation, or the scorn of the Linux community, or the veracity of their charges, have nothing to do with the law.
I've no issues with Stallman saying that his code is open and can be shared. I do have an issue with his assertion that "sharing" the code of a developer who has not granted that right is ethical.
>> You don't 'own' soundwaves, or the light bouncing off a screen or a peice of paper,..."
No, but I own the words written on the paper, or the image bouncing off the screen, or the notes structured as music that shape those soundwaves.
The notion that "ideas can't be owned" is true, but it is, well, beside the point. Unless ideas are communicated by someone via symbolic representation which, of necessity, involves altering some physical object or state, ideas remain uselessly locked up in our heads. It is the symbolic representation of ideas that warrant protection via copyright, and that can, indeed, be both owned and stolen.
The notion that I lose nothing if someone makes a copy of my work without my permission or without rewarding me is also incorrect. Yes, the creation of the unauthorized copy does not deprive me of my work. But that theft does deprive me, to whatever degree, of the rewards and benefits due to accrue to me if that individual had obtain a copy of my work legitimately. In other words, unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work deprives the copyright owner in the same way that leaving a department without paying for the clothes your carrying deprives the store's owners and staff. From my perpective, unauthorized copying of copyrighted work is essentially shoplifting.
I don't believe I argued that the public domain is worthless, or that people buy something because it is under copyright. By and large, people are indifferent to, and more probabably, unaware of, the copyright status of a prospective purchase.
I can agree that devolution of a work into the public domain opens up opportunities that are not available while the work remains undercopyright. However, I think those opportunities cannot support the network of commercial information distribution we have today in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I believe that the prospect of financial reward is an important motivation for the creation of authored works. In many cases, it is probably the primary motivation. Copyright is essential to the channeling of that financial reward. Absent copyright, we would likely revert to the sitation that prompted the creation of copyright in the first place: rampant theft from authors by publishers.
This "you can't own an idea" shibboleth is just a smokescreen.
First, it seems to presuppose that every idea possible idea already exists. Therefore, since an idea's existence pre-dates the individual who expresses it, it is impossible for the individual to own it.
I don't believe in that kind of universe.
More importantly, ideas cannot be communicated and shared unless someone creates a physical symbolic representation of that idea: by speaking, writing, singing, painting, etc. That physical representation of the idea can, in fact, be owned.
I read Stallman's ZDNet piece to strongly suggest that, if someone's proprietary code had been inserted into GNU, Linux, or the rest then that was illegal, but not unethical. I also understand him to be arguing that IP law actively prevents people from engaging in open sharing of their works, and that he considers this prevention of sharing to be legal but unethical.
I'm stating that using someone else's work without their permission is wrong and unethical. In academic and writing pursuits, this is called plagiarism. But, whatever word a particular discipline applies to the actvitiy, it remains unethical.
>> There is nothing unethical about copying code (or anything for that matter).
Of course there is, if someone else owns what you're copying and hasn't given you permission.
>> Too many people are too fixated on the idea of getting rich and could care less about helping out their fellow citizens.
Then I am afraid you must await Utopia or Heaven's descent to Earth, whichever comes first.
>>...copyright, patent and trademark laws have been several levels removed from the originator of the idea.
I won't use the word "idea" because copyright, in particular, exists to protect the creator of a work from theft by publishers. Whether or not that work expresses a legitimate idea or is just shopworn rhetoric is besides the point. That said, the only way for an originator of a work to relinquish his or her rights in that work is to give or sell those rights to others. Sometimes this happens when someone signs a contract with a publisher or distributor; sometimes people relinquish these rights as a condition of employment. You may choose not to like these aspects of our legal culture, but you can't argue that these people are being hoodwinked.
>> All the while, the person with the brain is getting peanuts, while a lot of people with very little upstairs get the lion's share.
Again, when this happens, it is because someone willingly put themselves in that position. Going after copyright because you think too many people let their ambition and greed blind them to the nature of the contract they're signing seems to me to be rather wrongheaded.
Every time I read the actual words of Richard Stallman, I can't help but ask "What planet is he on??"
His assertion that copying Unix code is not unethical is curious. Let's suppose I'm a teacher, and young Richard turns in a history paper that I recognize as a verbatim lift from the encyclopedia. I give hime a failing grade. He asks why. I tell him he cheated when he copied from the encyclopedia. Cheating, at least on my planet, is considered unethical.
Now, let's suppose young Richard then goes to his Beginning Programming course and turns in some coding homework. Being sharp-eyed and an Bell Labs veteran, the teacher spots code lifted verbatim from Unix. Richard gets another failing grade for cheating.
Yet, today, Stallman seems to argue that copyright s on Unix code prevent him from otherwise engaging in what he considers an ethical act: "sharing" someone else's code.
Have to disagree. The reason there isn't much public domain material in the marketplace is that there's little demand for it. Reducing copyright duration won't change that fact. I can't foresee an economically viable way to sustain a market for public domain material. And, it won't be a free resource. With or without copyright, it costs money to print books, to advertise them, to distribute them, to pay personnel salaries, to pay rent, taxes, and insurance on physical facilities, etc. The only reduction in cost that I can see is that no money will go to authors. And that's not much of a reduction.
Again, I think it is a bit over the top to portray the RIAA as a menace bent on destroying society. Doing stupid things vis-a-vis popular music doesn't meet my threshold of societal threat. I agree that they are rather clueless and I don't support the intent of their efforts, but I'm neither chagrined nor surprised that they're doing it.
And, yes, most of Disney's efforts have been derivative. What's the point, though? Everything is derived from something else. Choosing to make movies based on popular stories that are in the public domain seems to me to be a sensiblle business decision. I.e., Disney knows the story is popular and successful going in, and they don't need to pay royalties to the original author. The fact that DIsney, and others, lobbied successfully for copyright extension shouldn't be a shock. Lobbying for the legislation was just another business tool for them. And, that's perfectly legitimate.
What is distressing, however, is the apparent widespread attitude among many who share your views about copyright that organized, professional political and lobbying activity to advance your objectives is somehow beneath you -- that such activity is unseemly and unethical. That's self-defeating prissiness.
I don't believe that the public domain will ever sustain a publication and distribution system that approaches the coverage and availability of the current commercially driven structure. Why? Because there's little demand for it and, therefore, little money to be made doing it. Almost all of what is published, recorded or filmed is very perishable and very forgettable. Even if it devolved into the public domain 28 days after publication, it doesn't strike me that it would find much of a market.
As for the RIAA...well, they're a lobbying group paid to advance the interests of the recording industry. As such, they are the last group I'd expect to propose major changes in the way pop music is made and sold. That's not to defend or support thier actions, but just to recognize the RIAA for what it is.
In any case, the usual course for change when technology obsoletes a business model is for entirely new companies to spring up, rather than existing companies transforming themselves. If (and I think it is a big if) the public no longer wants to buy real CD's in real stores, but would rather download music online, then we will see the demise of music stores and the music sections of book stores, as well as the demise of most of the major recording companies. Then, if the demand for recorded music remains, someone will fill the demand.
Meanwhile, the people responsible for copyright infringement are the people hosting and downloading copyrighted music, not the RIAA. No one really needs the music -- it's a luxury -- , and the RIAA hasn't forced anyone to do anything. They just provide a handy excuse for people who have figured out how to get something for free, and want a way to obscure the fact that it's illegal.
>>... But I bought the 500 books... that's a lot of books! What if I bought them expressly so that I can give away copies? Meaning that if I couldn't make copies, I owuldn't buy them... meaning no sale?
Still illegal. Whether or not you think it is moral, or whether or not it means more sales of the book is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is against the law. Why be surprised when lawbreakers are treated like criminals? (And don't try to package filesharing as some pristine attempt to ensure free speech.)
making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that...
Making a profit is the only deal that counts for a business. No profit, no business. (And RedHat's profits are barely there._...mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has...
That tells me Linux is taking market share from someone other than Apple.
Re: drivers -- I've been running an OS X machine for a year. I've added and removed hardware and software. Needing to think about drivers isn;t part of the process. Sure, the hardware needs drivers, but Apple's tight control of the platform ensures that finding and installing drivers is something that never gets in the way of users.
If, perhaps, you lack experience using OS X, don't be so quick to join all the other party faithful in asserting that the Mac is just an over-priced pretty display. If you want to use computers, rather than learning about computers, buy a Mac.
Your post is right on target (he says with a Linux machine sitting on his desk next to an iMac). ONe of the structural advantages that a single vendor -- like Apple-- has over a disparate community like the Linux community is that it is able to ensure that "stuff just works" before putting the price tag on. In the bargain, fewer applications are likely to be available for any given purpose, but there's also much less demand or need for an abundance of similar apps.
Linux distributions can, if they wish, follow a similar path. That's part of what RedHat has been doing with their last two releases, and a big part of what Ximian does with its Desktop.
In addition, not all computer users are twenty-something. Older folks with arthritis and other maladies have less precise control of the motion of their hands than younger people. If your hand isn't terribly steady or if it is painful to manipulate a mouse, a simple mouse with one big button is a boon. (Stay tuned. It will happen to all of us.)
In any case, computers ought to be as easy to use as possible, and discussion shouldn't focus on bogus claims that ease-of-use reduces functionality or is only necessary in inverse proportion to the intelligence of the user. I've known a lot of very intelligent people who use computers to get their work done, but are othewise completely uninterested in them. There's no difference in functionality in OS X between a one-button and a three-button mouse. Using one or the other is a matter of personal convenience, not an indicator of intelligence.
I'm not an apologist for the recordng industry, and I've read rather a lot of Jefferson.
I agree that current copyright duration is far too long. I don't agree that the way to remedy that is to engage in massive copyright infringement Massive infringement will only result in new legislation that mandates new technical solutions that will inconvenience people,like me, who think almost all contemporary popular entertainment out to be burned and buried, not shared.
I also disagree that even overly long copyright duration has a serious and negative impact on the spread of knowledge and ideas. Yes, books and such are kept out of the public domain, but that has little real impact on what people read or what they listen to. The last I looked, very little in the way of public domain material was available in stores. Because publishers, wholesalers and retailers can't make a profit on it, Why? Because hardly anyone wants to buy public domain material. (And the Internet is not going to become some kind of universal library where we all go to get public domain material, to the exclusion of buying what we want. I.e., how many kids do you know who would watch a 75-year old public domain MIckey Mouse cartoon rather than pay to watch this summer's flicks?)
Slashdot Mirror
You're focusing on the idea. I'm not. I'm talking about a book, a piece of music, a film, C++ code, etc. That's what I have absolute control of until I start transferring rights to it, especially the right to make and distribute copies. ("Fire" is obviously not a "work" in this regard, because it is not a symbolic representation.)
I agree that technology has made it much easier to copy and distribute information, but that doesn't alter the relationship between a work and its creator.
And, yes, following Applebee's recipe at home deprives them of revenue, presuming you would otherwise go to the restaurant for that dish.
No. We have rights because we exist.
The role of law is to protect, not create, those rights. Law attempts to do that, in large measure, by reconciling conflicting but legitimate rights. For example, the lion's right to eat the gazelle and the gazelle's right to not be eaten.
You don't need a legal system to establish that a person who creates something has all rights to it. How could rights to the "thing" possibly rest elsewhere if the "thing" did not previously exist?
If I create something (say, a book) I retain all rights to it until I decide differently. Let's say I decide to sign a contract with a publisher. In that contract, I exchange some, but not all, of my rights in my book for the publisher's skills and services. Whatever rights that I did not asign to the publisher remain with me. If another person buys a copy of my newly published book, that has no impact on the rights I retain.
Again, the flow of rights is from the work's creator -- where all rights initially reside -- to society, at the choice of the author. Rights in a work do not flow from society to the work's creator; society has no rights in that regard until the author transfers them.
I'm quite willing to acknowledge that you believe ideas can't be stolen. I believe that, too. But, an idea isn't what is stolen when copyright violations take place. The theft involves the unauthorized removal of all or part of an author's right to benefit from his work by controlling how the work is copied and distributed. To argue that it isn't theft because no physical property is involved is equivalent to arguing that I'm not a thief if I break into your bank's network and transfer your funds to my account.
An author has absolute control over his work until and unless he assigns all or some of those rights to others, such as a publisher. In other words, society isn't in a position to grant any rights to an author, inventor or creator because all the rights belong to the work's author. The "flow" of rights moves from the author to society, not vice versa.
>> ... that is the primary reason that 'copyright violations' are not theft.
The theft involves the acquisition of an author's potential future gain derived from maintaining exclusive control of the copying and distribution of his work. Arguing that copyright infringement isn't theft because the author continues to hold his original work is simplistic and wrong.
To reiterate, the value due an author is not mere possession of the original work, but the potential for benefit and gain derived from the author's right to control how his work is copied and distributed. That's why copyright violations are theft, because the violator is stealing some of that potential.
As for Stallman, I agree that he has promoted an interesting software development model. I don't agree that failure to share code is unethical. I certainly don't agree that sharing someone else's code without their permission is ethical. And, I very much disagree when Stallman or anyone attempts to expand his software development notions into a broader philisophy with universal social relevance.
At heart, I believe a work's creator has absolute control over that work unless and until he sells/gives/relinquishes all or some of those rights to others. That transfer of certain rights in return for publication and marketing is the traditional way authors and others choose to be paid for their efforts.
>> What if I come in and just look at the clothes in your department store, then go home and sew up some copies for myself? Do I owe you money?
...the process of copying the information does not, in all but contrived circumstances, destroy the original...
No, but if you do that and make thousands of knock-offs and start selling or giving them away, that's a different story. If you also put my name on your copies, it is counterfeiting.
>>
I don't see the relevance of this focus on whether or not the original is destroyed. Surely our protection of an author's interest in his work ought to include considerably more than just preserving the original.
>>...it's in everyones interest for people to have incentives to come up with new ideas, and so copyrights, patents, and to a lesser extent trademarks were created. But we should not forget that this is an artificial state, not a natural one...
Why is this artifical vs natural distinction important? I'm not even sure how to tell the difference. If you're arguing that it is natural for people to want to share anything they make with no expectation that others will reward them for their efforts, I'll disagree. People do want to share, but they also want to be rewarded and they want to control and manipulate their creations in order to exact the greated possible gain from others.
People in society have a infinite number of competitive and conficting interests. A stable and equaitable society will balance and regulate those interests to ensure the greatest overall benefit.
>> But now these sames laws have been perverted...
The law has not become "perverted". SCO hasn't changed a single word of any law, and won't. They're simply suing. Seems to me they would have been just as able to sue in 1803 as they are in 2003.
SCO's behavior, or their reputation, or the scorn of the Linux community, or the veracity of their charges, have nothing to do with the law.
I've no issues with Stallman saying that his code is open and can be shared. I do have an issue with his assertion that "sharing" the code of a developer who has not granted that right is ethical.
Ok. I acknowledge that you don't believe taking something that doesn't belong to you is not theft.
>> You don't 'own' soundwaves, or the light bouncing off a screen or a peice of paper,..."
No, but I own the words written on the paper, or the image bouncing off the screen, or the notes structured as music that shape those soundwaves.
The notion that "ideas can't be owned" is true, but it is, well, beside the point. Unless ideas are communicated by someone via symbolic representation which, of necessity, involves altering some physical object or state, ideas remain uselessly locked up in our heads. It is the symbolic representation of ideas that warrant protection via copyright, and that can, indeed, be both owned and stolen.
The notion that I lose nothing if someone makes a copy of my work without my permission or without rewarding me is also incorrect. Yes, the creation of the unauthorized copy does not deprive me of my work. But that theft does deprive me, to whatever degree, of the rewards and benefits due to accrue to me if that individual had obtain a copy of my work legitimately. In other words, unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work deprives the copyright owner in the same way that leaving a department without paying for the clothes your carrying deprives the store's owners and staff. From my perpective, unauthorized copying of copyrighted work is essentially shoplifting.
I don't believe I argued that the public domain is worthless, or that people buy something because it is under copyright. By and large, people are indifferent to, and more probabably, unaware of, the copyright status of a prospective purchase.
I can agree that devolution of a work into the public domain opens up opportunities that are not available while the work remains undercopyright. However, I think those opportunities cannot support the network of commercial information distribution we have today in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I believe that the prospect of financial reward is an important motivation for the creation of authored works. In many cases, it is probably the primary motivation. Copyright is essential to the channeling of that financial reward. Absent copyright, we would likely revert to the sitation that prompted the creation of copyright in the first place: rampant theft from authors by publishers.
This "you can't own an idea" shibboleth is just a smokescreen.
First, it seems to presuppose that every idea possible idea already exists. Therefore, since an idea's existence pre-dates the individual who expresses it, it is impossible for the individual to own it.
I don't believe in that kind of universe.
More importantly, ideas cannot be communicated and shared unless someone creates a physical symbolic representation of that idea: by speaking, writing, singing, painting, etc. That physical representation of the idea can, in fact, be owned.
I read Stallman's ZDNet piece to strongly suggest that, if someone's proprietary code had been inserted into GNU, Linux, or the rest then that was illegal, but not unethical. I also understand him to be arguing that IP law actively prevents people from engaging in open sharing of their works, and that he considers this prevention of sharing to be legal but unethical.
I'm stating that using someone else's work without their permission is wrong and unethical. In academic and writing pursuits, this is called plagiarism. But, whatever word a particular discipline applies to the actvitiy, it remains unethical.
If someone owns something and hasn't given you permission to copy it, use it, or view it, then doing anyone of those things is wrong and unethical.
>> There is nothing unethical about copying code (or anything for that matter).
...copyright, patent and trademark laws have been several levels removed from the originator of the idea.
Of course there is, if someone else owns what you're copying and hasn't given you permission.
>> Too many people are too fixated on the idea of getting rich and could care less about helping out their fellow citizens.
Then I am afraid you must await Utopia or Heaven's descent to Earth, whichever comes first.
>>
I won't use the word "idea" because copyright, in particular, exists to protect the creator of a work from theft by publishers. Whether or not that work expresses a legitimate idea or is just shopworn rhetoric is besides the point. That said, the only way for an originator of a work to relinquish his or her rights in that work is to give or sell those rights to others. Sometimes this happens when someone signs a contract with a publisher or distributor; sometimes people relinquish these rights as a condition of employment. You may choose not to like these aspects of our legal culture, but you can't argue that these people are being hoodwinked.
>> All the while, the person with the brain is getting peanuts, while a lot of people with very little upstairs get the lion's share.
Again, when this happens, it is because someone willingly put themselves in that position. Going after copyright because you think too many people let their ambition and greed blind them to the nature of the contract they're signing seems to me to be rather wrongheaded.
Every time I read the actual words of Richard Stallman, I can't help but ask "What planet is he on??"
His assertion that copying Unix code is not unethical is curious. Let's suppose I'm a teacher, and young Richard turns in a history paper that I recognize as a verbatim lift from the encyclopedia. I give hime a failing grade. He asks why. I tell him he cheated when he copied from the encyclopedia. Cheating, at least on my planet, is considered unethical.
Now, let's suppose young Richard then goes to his Beginning Programming course and turns in some coding homework. Being sharp-eyed and an Bell Labs veteran, the teacher spots code lifted verbatim from Unix. Richard gets another failing grade for cheating.
Yet, today, Stallman seems to argue that copyright s on Unix code prevent him from otherwise engaging in what he considers an ethical act: "sharing" someone else's code.
>> Wal-Mart doesn't exactly higher the "brightest bulbs in the chandelier" if you know what I mean...
"higher"???
Yeah, we know what you mean.
Have to disagree. The reason there isn't much public domain material in the marketplace is that there's little demand for it. Reducing copyright duration won't change that fact. I can't foresee an economically viable way to sustain a market for public domain material. And, it won't be a free resource. With or without copyright, it costs money to print books, to advertise them, to distribute them, to pay personnel salaries, to pay rent, taxes, and insurance on physical facilities, etc. The only reduction in cost that I can see is that no money will go to authors. And that's not much of a reduction.
Again, I think it is a bit over the top to portray the RIAA as a menace bent on destroying society. Doing stupid things vis-a-vis popular music doesn't meet my threshold of societal threat. I agree that they are rather clueless and I don't support the intent of their efforts, but I'm neither chagrined nor surprised that they're doing it.
And, yes, most of Disney's efforts have been derivative. What's the point, though? Everything is derived from something else. Choosing to make movies based on popular stories that are in the public domain seems to me to be a sensiblle business decision. I.e., Disney knows the story is popular and successful going in, and they don't need to pay royalties to the original author. The fact that DIsney, and others, lobbied successfully for copyright extension shouldn't be a shock. Lobbying for the legislation was just another business tool for them. And, that's perfectly legitimate.
What is distressing, however, is the apparent widespread attitude among many who share your views about copyright that organized, professional political and lobbying activity to advance your objectives is somehow beneath you -- that such activity is unseemly and unethical. That's self-defeating prissiness.
I don't believe that the public domain will ever sustain a publication and distribution system that approaches the coverage and availability of the current commercially driven structure. Why? Because there's little demand for it and, therefore, little money to be made doing it. Almost all of what is published, recorded or filmed is very perishable and very forgettable. Even if it devolved into the public domain 28 days after publication, it doesn't strike me that it would find much of a market.
As for the RIAA...well, they're a lobbying group paid to advance the interests of the recording industry. As such, they are the last group I'd expect to propose major changes in the way pop music is made and sold. That's not to defend or support thier actions, but just to recognize the RIAA for what it is.
In any case, the usual course for change when technology obsoletes a business model is for entirely new companies to spring up, rather than existing companies transforming themselves. If (and I think it is a big if) the public no longer wants to buy real CD's in real stores, but would rather download music online, then we will see the demise of music stores and the music sections of book stores, as well as the demise of most of the major recording companies. Then, if the demand for recorded music remains, someone will fill the demand.
Meanwhile, the people responsible for copyright infringement are the people hosting and downloading copyrighted music, not the RIAA. No one really needs the music -- it's a luxury -- , and the RIAA hasn't forced anyone to do anything. They just provide a handy excuse for people who have figured out how to get something for free, and want a way to obscure the fact that it's illegal.
>> ... But I bought the 500 books... that's a lot of books! What if I bought them expressly so that I can give away copies? Meaning that if I couldn't make copies, I owuldn't buy them... meaning no sale?
Still illegal. Whether or not you think it is moral, or whether or not it means more sales of the book is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is against the law. Why be surprised when lawbreakers are treated like criminals? (And don't try to package filesharing as some pristine attempt to ensure free speech.)
making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that...
...mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has...
Making a profit is the only deal that counts for a business. No profit, no business. (And RedHat's profits are barely there._
That tells me Linux is taking market share from someone other than Apple.
Re: drivers -- I've been running an OS X machine for a year. I've added and removed hardware and software. Needing to think about drivers isn;t part of the process. Sure, the hardware needs drivers, but Apple's tight control of the platform ensures that finding and installing drivers is something that never gets in the way of users.
If, perhaps, you lack experience using OS X, don't be so quick to join all the other party faithful in asserting that the Mac is just an over-priced pretty display. If you want to use computers, rather than learning about computers, buy a Mac.
>> ... a more advanced distribution like Debian
Depends on what you mean by "advanced", I guess.
Behind the screen, OS X, Linux and the BSD's are all peas in the Unix pod.
Your post is right on target (he says with a Linux machine sitting on his desk next to an iMac). ONe of the structural advantages that a single vendor -- like Apple-- has over a disparate community like the Linux community is that it is able to ensure that "stuff just works" before putting the price tag on. In the bargain, fewer applications are likely to be available for any given purpose, but there's also much less demand or need for an abundance of similar apps.
Linux distributions can, if they wish, follow a similar path. That's part of what RedHat has been doing with their last two releases, and a big part of what Ximian does with its Desktop.
In addition, not all computer users are twenty-something. Older folks with arthritis and other maladies have less precise control of the motion of their hands than younger people. If your hand isn't terribly steady or if it is painful to manipulate a mouse, a simple mouse with one big button is a boon. (Stay tuned. It will happen to all of us.)
In any case, computers ought to be as easy to use as possible, and discussion shouldn't focus on bogus claims that ease-of-use reduces functionality or is only necessary in inverse proportion to the intelligence of the user. I've known a lot of very intelligent people who use computers to get their work done, but are othewise completely uninterested in them. There's no difference in functionality in OS X between a one-button and a three-button mouse. Using one or the other is a matter of personal convenience, not an indicator of intelligence.
Nice rant. I can agree completely.
I'm not an apologist for the recordng industry, and I've read rather a lot of Jefferson.
I agree that current copyright duration is far too long. I don't agree that the way to remedy that is to engage in massive copyright infringement Massive infringement will only result in new legislation that mandates new technical solutions that will inconvenience people,like me, who think almost all contemporary popular entertainment out to be burned and buried, not shared.
I also disagree that even overly long copyright duration has a serious and negative impact on the spread of knowledge and ideas. Yes, books and such are kept out of the public domain, but that has little real impact on what people read or what they listen to. The last I looked, very little in the way of public domain material was available in stores. Because publishers, wholesalers and retailers can't make a profit on it, Why? Because hardly anyone wants to buy public domain material. (And the Internet is not going to become some kind of universal library where we all go to get public domain material, to the exclusion of buying what we want. I.e., how many kids do you know who would watch a 75-year old public domain MIckey Mouse cartoon rather than pay to watch this summer's flicks?)