Re:That it deems appropriate?
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
>then it is wrong to memorize a poem without paying the author first.
Interesting example in several ways:
1.A poem is not mere information, but an artistic expression of information. The information itself cannot be copyrighted.
2. Memorizing a poem is not copying or distributing it. In fact, to memorize the poem in the first place, you needed access to a (presumably) legal copy.
Re:That it deems appropriate?
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
All property is man-made and social. There is nothing about land, water or any other thing that makes it inherently property. Property is a legal distinction that gets applied to things, places, even people (though, we like to think, not in modern societies).
Scarcity is not intrinsic to property, though it certainly provides an incentive to devise the concept of property. It is, however, wrong to presume that scarcity does not apply to intellectual property.
For a test, try running down to the local Borders and counting up the books (ok - consider this a thought experiment;0) ). Then, count up the books that are worth reading.
Though not scarcity in the sense of only so many copies of any one item available, there is a relative scarcity of talent and time available to create worthwhile things. IP is one way -- though certainly not the only way imaginable -- to provide value in the creation process and to encourage the creation of those worthwhile things.
Re:That it deems appropriate?
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
OK, one more time. The DMCA, so long as it carries the force of law, endangers those who wish to facilitate the exercise of fair use by working around copy protection schemes. In so doing, the DMCA + copy protection eliminates fair use rights -- rights, by the way, that originate in part from the Constitution, in part from old case law of very long standing and whose codification in the Copyright Act is a relatively recent event.
Whether or not the holder of copyrighted material is obligated to make fair use easy, it is perfectly valid, in light of the DMCA, to be concerned for my legal rights. Mind you, the MPAA and the RIAA wish that I would forget those rights.
That it deems appropriate?
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hmmm.
Suppose we presume that this magic card really, really works. Assume it is the fly, cats-pajamas, Golly-Gee-Whiz-Neato, super deluxe, smokin', king of the hill, rad copy protection of all time. So perfect it gets canonized in Rome.
So --- It determines what it considers to be legitimate requests?
How does it tell the difference between a completely legal archive copy and an illegal copy?
How does it know the difference between a completely legal archive copy (a right protected by federal law, BTW) of an archive copy made because the original disk was destroyed?
How does it know the difference between an illegal installation on another computer and a legal installation on an upgraded computer? A legal installation on another computer that replaces the first one?
Is this smart card also a legal scholar, familiar with fair use exceptions?
Unlike many here, I believe in intellectual property rights and have no problem protecting them.
I have a big problem, however, with protecting intellectual property rights by taking away my rights and those of everybody else.
Store owners aren't allowed to protect against robbery by shooting everyone who looks like they might steal something. IP owners shouldn't be able to protect against theft by infringing on the legitimate rights of their potential customers.
First and foremost, I believe the DMCA to be both bad law and to be unconstitutional. I wrote a (bad and boring) article to that effect (http://dinotrac.com/dvd/pigs1.html) saying some things that smarter people have since said better. I do not like the law one bit.
I also understand the concept of staking out a position, and the common belief that one must stake out an extreme position in order to work towards the disarable end position.
However, some of the EFF tirades have caused me to ignore most of what they say. A friend still sends me EFFector alerts, and, now and then, I look at them. But I no longer trust the EFF. I don't mistrust their motivation. I know their hearts are in the right place. It's more a matter of trusting them not to waste my time, of not being able to take what they say at face value. That, I think, is the danger of crying wolf.
Seem to be a lot of folks who aren't very impressed by this. I'll admit that the headline is a little over the top, but the story is still interesting -- and fraught with interesting potential.
For example:
StarBot: How long before it learns to make a grande latte half-skim/half 30 weight?
Bouncebot: How long before it learns not to turn its back on the loud drunk in the corner?
Lobot: How long before it decides it really doesn't want to learn anything, just sit around and smile.
Congressbot: how long before it learns that working tirelessly for your constituency is its own reward, whereas lying for assorted interest groups is money in the bank? Note: This may be a special case of the Lobot.
If this flies, ya gotta love it. Turnabout may not always be fair play, but sometimes it does justice. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
It was just this kind of "creative" contract interpretation that let Microsoft screw Spyglass pretty much out of existence.
PS: I hear that Spyglass picked up a little justice of its own in the form of a lawsuit settlement. Seems Microsoft told the Court some things in the antitrust trial that affected the way the Spyglass contract should be read. Guess they figured no one was paying attention.
Big numbers and biblical times don't get along very well, anyway.
These were folks, after all, who used 40 to mean a very long time. 40 days and 40 nights of rain, 40 years wandering the deserts, etc. If it says forty, it means a long time, whatever that may be.
Our politicians may be full of hot air, NASA officials may be full of hot air, we might all be full of hot air,
but at least our satellites aren't!!
Unless, of course, you count things like the Mars Pathfinder which landed inside a coccoon of airbags and the upcoming Mars Rover missions which will do the same. But those don't count, right?
One thing in these benchmarks surprised me just a bit: that reiser would do so well on the heavy-throughput/large file test.
I've been laboring under the perception that reiser was good for randomly accessing small files, but paid a performance penalty when going after large ones.
Guess I'm still waiting to prove that no one can be wrong about everything!;0) Cheers.
One, I've always found code review beneficial for a project. Weaker coders learn good habits; stonger coders teach good habits
There is code reveiew and there is code review. I tend to take a very sour view of formal code review meetings, except under special circumstances: Better understanding problem code, guiding new programmers (and, even then, I'm not sure) and carefully reviewing things that a) have to work very well and b) must be very well understood by those whose code will interact with them.
Formal code reviews, unless managed very well by a competent and confident moderator, can easily degenerate into "See what I know!" fests whereby lots of folks who haven't lived and died with a problem pile on the person who has.
Formal code reviews often have an unintended consequence: they can (not must, but can) reduce the level of informal review, coordination and help that takes place. You know what I'm talking about : "Leave me alone, kid. I've got my own schedule to meet. Besides, that's what the code review is for."
Informal code reviews -- "Hey Jack, take a look at this, would you?" should be happening all of the time. Some managers (and developers) may believe that time spent huddled over a terminal together is half as productive as time spent alone in front of a terminal, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I have to sadmit that your response totally confuses me.
I don't remember coming out in favor of frivolous lawsuits and I've certainly never defended the record industry, Fritz Hollings, Jack Valenti or any of those other prize toads.
I merely said that, if you are being ripped off, the fact that you are being ripped off is more important than the identity of the people ripping you off.
I have trouble seeing how that is a controversial statement. And I really have trouble seeing the connection with your post.
Can you enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing?
>As countless others have said, social solutions, not technological ones.
People doing what's right is better than technological solutions and better than legal solutions. The Hollings/Disney/whomever crap that folks are stirring up is an abomination.
Of course, if people always did what's right, we wouldn't need courts, police or armies.
I believe that artists have a moral claim on their own creations: but for their energy and vision, the creation would not exist.
Understand, however, that this moral claim does not prevent an artist from saying "Hey, I don't want the burden of this. Take it, it's yours." IE: putting their work directly into the public domain. In a way, you can have the best of both worlds. Don't agree that musicians need some control over their work? Give yours away and prove your point.
The more I think about it, the more I like my bonfire idea. I have a feeling that a lot of interesting things might happen if we could get those folks out of the picture.
Who knows? Someone might even prove (not conjecture, not philosphize) me completely wrong. I don't like to be wrong, but this is one of those places where being wrong means the world's a little better place than I give it credit for. As a father with three kids, that's the kind of wrong I would love to be.
"20-to whatever moron..." instead of dealing with the content of his post
The moron comment was completely fair in response to his "40 year old morons" I don't like being called names any more than you or he does (even though I'm actually closer to a 50 year old moron).
As to responding to the post, I did.
My response was simple:
Reviling the recording industry doesn't pay artists. If you read my post, you saw that I have no conceptual issue(maybe a few legal and moral issues) with piling the entire record industry on a bonfire and soaking it with lighter fluid.
Artists should have the right to sign deals with folks who will handle distribution, publicity, etc, if that's what they want to do. However, the music industry isn't taking artists on as clients, with an obligation to serve their interests and abide by their wishes. It steals from them and treats them as chattel. This is more than wrong, it's criminal. Musicians continue to be bonded in much the way athletes were held before the Curt Flood case opened the floodgates. Musicians need their own Curt Flood, that's for sure.
I agree that artists would do well by giving away some music. Teasers are a great way to attract buyers. I just think that the decision of whether to give something away, when, what and how should be at the musician's discretion.
I don't see how musicians are helped by a world where anybody can take as they please without regard for those who created it. Who's ripping you off matters less than the fact that you are being ripped off.
As I said, positive suggestions for taking care of musicians are a desirable thing. Mere statements that "record companies suck, so I'll take what I want" don't help a soul.
Why? Artists should be compensated for their work --- if it creates sufficient value that you wish to exploit (hang a copy in your living room, listen to it in your home, etc) it.
This is different from saying that the recording industry shouldn't be piled high on a bonfire and doused with lighter fluid.
The problem is that you 20-to whatever morons want to exploit the artists even more than the recording industry. You don't want to pay them anything!
If you were to seriously campaign for artists' rights and to propose somethng that would help artists at least as much as your personal music collection, it might be easier to take you seriously.
Even less, depending on whether its being paid on a 1099 contract basis or a W2 basis. If being paid directly as a contract, you've got to shrink it by 7% to account for the so-called "employer's share" of Social Security.
Ummm... SDI came nearly twenty years after the key decisions were made that cut back the space program. It really was the cost of welfare and the Great Society, not to mention that little scuffle over in Vietnam that clobbered the space program.
OOC: Republican or not (I'm not), since when is it "a rant" to mention welfare programs and their effect upon the budget? Enacting the Great Society programs meant cutting budgets in other places. Many people thought (and still think) that cutting back on space exploratoin in favore of welfare programs was a sound choice. I'm not one of them, BTW, but it ain't rocket science, if you'll pardon the pun, that you've got to cut back somewhere if you ramp up major new spending initiatives.
For all of the strange ramblings about who in India could or could not afford one of these things, I cannot help but be intrigued by a new machine and concept that originated outside of the US, Japan and China.
It makes me think of Henry Ford rolling out the Model T in the early 20th century. Up until then, automobiles (at least in the US -- I'm not familiar with elsewhere) were marketed to the well-to-do. The Model T was marketed to the ordinary. In fact, one of Ford's goals was that every worker in the Ford factory be able to buy one.
Does that mean everybody in the US could buy a Model T? No, it didn't. But the Model T made automobiles much more accessible than they had been, for both individuals and for businesses.
I will trust that the developers know their own country better than I do, and wish them well. It will be interesting to see what comes of their efforts.
Re: recipes, contest rules, phonebooks They are not copyrightable, though elements of them may warrant copyright protection.
For one who claims to wish a reasonable argument, you certainly back away from one. You started by asking for proof of some things. I asked if you were willing to prove your right to take someone else's work, to take the fruit of their labor and creativity without compensation, without consideration.
You may think justice, equity and morality are bullshit. I don't. I certainly Hope that I never do business with you, rely on you to tell the truth in a trial, or count on you to perform any important duty.
Ah, the standard shlock debaters trick. Use a generic word like information to mask the actual problem.
Copyright does not restrict access to information in any way. Copyright is designed to protect authorship, not to restrict the flow of information. In fact, you will find that pure information cannot be copyrighted. Classic examples include contest rules, recipes and phone books.
Trouble is, books and songs and paintings and the like are more than information in much the same way that automobiles and airplanes and houses are more than metal and glass and brick.
It's ok to get philosophical, but you should do it honestly. This whole "information" charade denigrates artists and authors, pretends that they make no unique contribution. If that were the case, however, that they truly add no value, then there should be no market in pirating -- oops, liberating their product.
In fact, it does more. It turns the moral and just (that the spoils of creation should rightly flow to the creator) on its head (any old bozo should be able to appropriate your work without consideration).
That's all fine, but are you preparted to prove that you have some right to other people's work? A right that comes without compensation, without legal basis?
>but my understanding is that the doctrine of First Sale is derived from federal law and case law,
People try to say the same thing about fair use, but you've got to be careful in taking that too far. For one thing, case law is often based on Constitutional concepts. For another, federal law sometimes codifies what has been developed in case law. The fact that a code has been developed may invalidate or alter the old case law or it may not. If the case law stems from Constitutional interpretation, the statute may simply clarify the principles and provide a single convenient place to find them.
I'm not sure where the first sale doctrine fits in, but I believe that attempts to impose royalties on CDs that have already been sold to date without express limitations on their resale (IOW -- pretty much all music CDs ) would at least implicate rights to private property and the right to contract.
I can understand your confusion as I was jumping from one place to another.
Conceptually, though, the principle is the same. He has bills to pay and so he can not justify the time and effort to continue what he has been doing.
Same with folks who do things for free: The need to make a living will tend to limit the time most people can devote. A few are not encumbered by the material world, but lots of potentially good stuff won't get made if people can't get paid.
Slashdot Mirror
>then it is wrong to memorize a poem without paying the author first.
Interesting example in several ways:
1.A poem is not mere information, but an artistic expression of information. The information itself cannot be copyrighted.
2. Memorizing a poem is not copying or distributing it. In fact, to memorize the poem in the first place, you needed access to a (presumably) legal copy.
All property is man-made and social.
;0) ). Then, count up the books that are worth reading.
There is nothing about land, water or any other thing that makes it inherently property. Property is a legal distinction that gets applied to things, places, even people (though, we like to think, not in modern societies).
Scarcity is not intrinsic to property, though it certainly provides an incentive to devise the concept of property.
It is, however, wrong to presume that scarcity does not apply to intellectual property.
For a test, try running down to the local Borders and counting up the books (ok - consider this a thought experiment
Though not scarcity in the sense of only so many copies of any one item available, there is a relative scarcity of talent and time available to create worthwhile things. IP is one way -- though certainly not the only way imaginable -- to provide value in the creation process and to encourage the creation of those worthwhile things.
OK, one more time.
The DMCA, so long as it carries the force of law, endangers those who wish to facilitate the exercise of fair use by working around copy protection schemes. In so doing, the DMCA + copy protection eliminates fair use rights -- rights, by the way, that originate in part from the Constitution, in part from old case law of very long standing and whose codification in the Copyright Act is a relatively recent event.
Whether or not the holder of copyrighted material is obligated to make fair use easy, it is perfectly valid, in light of the DMCA, to be concerned for my legal rights. Mind you, the MPAA and the RIAA wish that I would forget those rights.
Hmmm.
Suppose we presume that this magic card really, really works.
Assume it is the fly, cats-pajamas, Golly-Gee-Whiz-Neato, super deluxe, smokin', king of the hill, rad copy protection of all time.
So perfect it gets canonized in Rome.
So ---
It determines what it considers to be legitimate requests?
How does it tell the difference between a completely legal archive copy and an illegal copy?
How does it know the difference between a completely legal archive copy (a right protected by federal law, BTW) of an archive copy made because the original disk was destroyed?
How does it know the difference between an illegal installation on another computer and a legal installation on an upgraded computer? A legal installation on another computer that replaces the first one?
Is this smart card also a legal scholar, familiar with fair use exceptions?
Unlike many here, I believe in intellectual property rights and have no problem protecting them.
I have a big problem, however, with protecting intellectual property rights by taking away my rights and those of everybody else.
Store owners aren't allowed to protect against robbery by shooting everyone who looks like they might steal something. IP owners shouldn't be able to protect against theft by infringing on the legitimate rights of their potential customers.
First and foremost, I believe the DMCA to be both bad law and to be unconstitutional. I wrote a (bad and boring) article to that effect (http://dinotrac.com/dvd/pigs1.html) saying some things that smarter people have since said better. I do not like the law one bit.
I also understand the concept of staking out a position, and the common belief that one must stake out an extreme position in order to work towards the disarable end position.
However, some of the EFF tirades have caused me to ignore most of what they say. A friend still sends me EFFector alerts, and, now and then, I look at them. But I no longer trust the EFF. I don't mistrust their motivation. I know their hearts are in the right place. It's more a matter of trusting them not to waste my time, of not being able to take what they say at face value. That, I think, is the danger of crying wolf.
Seem to be a lot of folks who aren't very impressed by this. I'll admit that the headline is a little over the top, but the story is still interesting -- and fraught with interesting potential.
For example:
StarBot: How long before it learns to make a grande latte half-skim/half 30 weight?
Bouncebot: How long before it learns not to turn its back on the loud drunk in the corner?
Lobot: How long before it decides it really doesn't want to learn anything, just sit around and smile.
Congressbot: how long before it learns that working tirelessly for your constituency is its own reward, whereas lying for assorted interest groups is money in the bank? Note: This may be a special case of the Lobot.
If this flies, ya gotta love it.
Turnabout may not always be fair play, but sometimes it does justice.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
It was just this kind of "creative" contract interpretation that let Microsoft screw Spyglass pretty much out of existence.
PS: I hear that Spyglass picked up a little justice of its own in the form of a lawsuit settlement. Seems Microsoft told the Court some things in the antitrust trial that affected the way the Spyglass contract should be read. Guess they figured no one was paying attention.
Big numbers and biblical times don't get along very well, anyway.
These were folks, after all, who used 40 to mean a very long time.
40 days and 40 nights of rain, 40 years wandering the deserts, etc.
If it says forty, it means a long time, whatever that may be.
Our politicians may be full of hot air,
NASA officials may be full of hot air,
we might all be full of hot air,
but at least our satellites aren't!!
Unless, of course, you count things like the Mars Pathfinder which landed inside a coccoon of airbags and the upcoming Mars Rover missions which will do the same.
But those don't count, right?
One thing in these benchmarks surprised me just a bit:
;0)
that reiser would do so well on the heavy-throughput/large file test.
I've been laboring under the perception that reiser was good for randomly accessing small files, but paid a performance penalty when going after large ones.
Guess I'm still waiting to prove that no one can be wrong about everything!
Cheers.
One, I've always found code review beneficial for a project. Weaker coders learn good habits; stonger coders teach good habits
There is code reveiew and there is code review. I tend to take a very sour view of formal code review meetings, except under special circumstances: Better understanding problem code, guiding new programmers (and, even then, I'm not sure) and carefully reviewing things that a) have to work very well and b) must be very well understood by those whose code will interact with them.
Formal code reviews, unless managed very well by a competent and confident moderator, can easily degenerate into "See what I know!" fests whereby lots of folks who haven't lived and died with a problem pile on the person who has.
Formal code reviews often have an unintended consequence: they can (not must, but can) reduce the level of informal review, coordination and help that takes place. You know what I'm talking about : "Leave me alone, kid. I've got my own schedule to meet. Besides, that's what the code review is for."
Informal code reviews -- "Hey Jack, take a look at this, would you?" should be happening all of the time. Some managers (and developers) may believe that time spent huddled over a terminal together is half as productive as time spent alone in front of a terminal, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I have to sadmit that your response totally confuses me.
I don't remember coming out in favor of frivolous lawsuits and I've certainly never defended the record industry, Fritz Hollings, Jack Valenti or any of those other prize toads.
I merely said that, if you are being ripped off, the fact that you are being ripped off is more important than the identity of the people ripping you off.
I have trouble seeing how that is a controversial statement. And I really have trouble seeing the connection with your post.
Can you enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing?
>As countless others have said, social solutions, not technological ones.
People doing what's right is better than technological solutions and better than legal solutions. The Hollings/Disney/whomever crap that folks are stirring up is an abomination.
Of course, if people always did what's right, we wouldn't need courts, police or armies.
I believe that artists have a moral claim on their own creations: but for their energy and vision, the creation would not exist.
Understand, however, that this moral claim does not prevent an artist from saying "Hey, I don't want the burden of this. Take it, it's yours." IE: putting their work directly into the public domain. In a way, you can have the best of both worlds. Don't agree that musicians need some control over their work? Give yours away and prove your point.
The more I think about it, the more I like my bonfire idea. I have a feeling that a lot of interesting things might happen if we could get those folks out of the picture.
Who knows? Someone might even prove (not conjecture, not philosphize) me completely wrong. I don't like to be wrong, but this is one of those places where being wrong means the world's a little better place than I give it credit for. As a father with three kids, that's the kind of wrong I would love to be.
Yeah. When you take that all into account, you guys are working on the cheap. Thanks.
"20-to whatever moron..." instead of dealing with the content of his post
The moron comment was completely fair in response to his "40 year old morons" I don't like being called names any more than you or he does (even though I'm actually closer to a 50 year old moron).
As to responding to the post, I did.
My response was simple:
Reviling the recording industry doesn't pay artists. If you read my post, you saw that I have no conceptual issue(maybe a few legal and moral issues) with piling the entire record industry on a bonfire and soaking it with lighter fluid.
Artists should have the right to sign deals with folks who will handle distribution, publicity, etc, if that's what they want to do. However, the music industry isn't taking artists on as clients, with an obligation to serve their interests and abide by their wishes. It steals from them and treats them as chattel. This is more than wrong, it's criminal. Musicians continue to be bonded in much the way athletes were held before the Curt Flood case opened the floodgates. Musicians need their own Curt Flood, that's for sure.
I agree that artists would do well by giving away some music. Teasers are a great way to attract buyers. I just think that the decision of whether to give something away, when, what and how should be at the musician's discretion.
I don't see how musicians are helped by a world where anybody can take as they please without regard for those who created it. Who's ripping you off matters less than the fact that you are being ripped off.
As I said, positive suggestions for taking care of musicians are a desirable thing. Mere statements that "record companies suck, so I'll take what I want" don't help a soul.
Why? Artists should be compensated for their work --- if it creates sufficient value that you wish to exploit (hang a copy in your living room, listen to it in your home, etc) it.
This is different from saying that the recording industry shouldn't be piled high on a bonfire and doused with lighter fluid.
The problem is that you 20-to whatever morons want to exploit the artists even more than the recording industry. You don't want to pay them anything!
If you were to seriously campaign for artists' rights and to propose somethng that would help artists at least as much as your personal music collection, it might be easier to take you seriously.
Even less, depending on whether its being paid on a 1099 contract basis or a W2 basis.
If being paid directly as a contract, you've got to shrink it by 7% to account for the so-called "employer's share" of Social Security.
Ummm...
SDI came nearly twenty years after the key decisions were made that cut back the space program. It really was the cost of welfare and the Great Society, not to mention that little scuffle over in Vietnam that clobbered the space program.
OOC: Republican or not (I'm not), since when is it "a rant" to mention welfare programs and their effect upon the budget? Enacting the Great Society programs meant cutting budgets in other places. Many people thought (and still think) that cutting back on space exploratoin in favore of welfare programs was a sound choice. I'm not one of them, BTW, but it ain't rocket science, if you'll pardon the pun, that you've got to cut back somewhere if you ramp up major new spending initiatives.
For all of the strange ramblings about who in India could or could not afford one of these things, I cannot help but be intrigued by a new machine and concept that originated outside of the US, Japan and China.
It makes me think of Henry Ford rolling out the Model T in the early 20th century. Up until then, automobiles (at least in the US -- I'm not familiar with elsewhere) were marketed to the well-to-do. The Model T was marketed to the ordinary. In fact, one of Ford's goals was that every worker in the Ford factory be able to buy one.
Does that mean everybody in the US could buy a Model T? No, it didn't. But the Model T made automobiles much more accessible than they had been, for both individuals and for businesses.
I will trust that the developers know their own country better than I do, and wish them well. It will be interesting to see what comes of their efforts.
Re: recipes, contest rules, phonebooks
They are not copyrightable, though elements of them may warrant copyright protection.
For one who claims to wish a reasonable argument, you certainly back away from one. You started by asking for proof of some things. I asked if you were willing to prove your right to take someone else's work, to take the fruit of their labor and creativity without compensation, without consideration.
You may think justice, equity and morality are bullshit. I don't. I certainly Hope that I never do business with you, rely on you to tell the truth in a trial, or count on you to perform any important duty.
Ah, the standard shlock debaters trick. Use a generic word like information to mask the actual problem.
Copyright does not restrict access to information in any way. Copyright is designed to protect authorship, not to restrict the flow of information. In fact, you will find that pure information cannot be copyrighted. Classic examples include contest rules, recipes and phone books.
Trouble is, books and songs and paintings and the like are more than information in much the same way that automobiles and airplanes and houses are more than metal and glass and brick.
It's ok to get philosophical, but you should do it honestly. This whole "information" charade denigrates artists and authors, pretends that they make no unique contribution. If that were the case, however, that they truly add no value, then there should be no market in pirating -- oops, liberating their product.
In fact, it does more. It turns the moral and just (that the spoils of creation should rightly flow to the creator) on its head (any old bozo should be able to appropriate your work without consideration).
That's all fine, but are you preparted to prove that you have some right to other people's work? A right that comes without compensation, without legal basis?
>but my understanding is that the doctrine of First Sale is derived from federal law and case law,
People try to say the same thing about fair use, but you've got to be careful in taking that too far. For one thing, case law is often based on Constitutional concepts. For another, federal law sometimes codifies what has been developed in case law. The fact that a code has been developed may invalidate or alter the old case law or it may not. If the case law stems from Constitutional interpretation, the statute may simply clarify the principles and provide a single convenient place to find them.
I'm not sure where the first sale doctrine fits in, but I believe that attempts to impose royalties on CDs that have already been sold to date without express limitations on their resale (IOW -- pretty much all music CDs ) would at least implicate rights to private property and the right to contract.
Nothing in this article is news except for the source.
This isn't RMS, it's a patent attorney writing in Forbes.
I think I'll stay in tonight. Surely, there are pigs flying about.
I can understand your confusion as I was jumping from one place to another.
Conceptually, though, the principle is the same.
He has bills to pay and so he can not justify the time and effort to continue what he has been doing.
Same with folks who do things for free:
The need to make a living will tend to limit the time most people can devote. A few are not encumbered by the material world, but lots of potentially good stuff won't get made if people can't get paid.