"And where exactly do you think the money going to do that is going to come from?"
Perhaps I wasn't too clear.
Are the members paying yearly licensing fees (or average yearly purchase costs) for their CAD programs now? If you could wink and ignore the chicken and egg problem, couldn't they fund the Free Software replacement with a portion of those fees? perhaps they would need to pool with their other continent/country counterparts?
"I think you've rather "cooked the books" a bit here."
OK, but haven't you done the same thing?
Don't you think that The American Institute of Architects (for instance) could fund the development of a Free CAD application to suit their members needs for less than the members pay in licensing currently? Couldn't the associations oversee the work so the individual members did not have to deal with the day to day issues if they chose not to? Wouldn't this shift things back the other way?
Unless they propose to limit it to only those with registered copyrights. So for about thirty dollars (I think that is the last amount I read) you can get yourself exempted from this law? That is what is wanted?
"NO company on earth can EVER offer unlimited anything, unless they can fill the known universe with nothing but their product."
Not quite right. If they sell 28.8 dial up single login unlimited accounts, they need to give you all the account can give and you care to take. 24X7 and as much as you can suck down or spew up.
The problem arises when the tech of the account you get can provide you more than they are willing to let you have on an unlimited account. Yes? No?
["Hey remember my old NES, that was cool"..."It needs to go in."]
Could be...
What's up with this quote:
"While development of Red Hat was discontinued in 2003, it directly spawned successors like Ubuntu, which aim to make desktop use of Linux commonplace."
As in two people can come up with the same invention without being aware of each other...
According to what I think your theory is, they should both then "own" that invention (get the patent) but the law does not work that way, does it?
In a free market, the buyer and the seller would negotiate the terms of use. The government would not be in the picture there.
Eg. I write a book. You want a copy, we negotiate a contract which says whether you can copy all or parts of it, whether you can let others see it, if you must place them under any contractual terms before letting them see it, etc. this might be how the free market could deal with the problem rather than the current non-free market of government granted monopolies.
The free market may come up with a better solution or it may not, but the current one is not a free market. No more than if the government only allowed one corporation to make jam.
Further, what's up with the requirement for fixing the work? Is that no more than a way for the literate to steal the works of hte illeterate? And why can some writings / designs and the like get sopyright protection and some can't? And if things work the way I think you envision, why can people pollute the public spaces by publishing their copyrighted works without permission?
"Once we've established this, then the rest of copyright and patent law is just details."
No the rest is not details. In the free market, without government granted monopolies, you could transfer your intellectual creations via contract with non-disclosure agreements and the like. They could be treated almost as trade secrets. But that is not what is being done with books these days, they are being published, or made public. Coke cannot make their secret formula public and still protect it.
When you take what you create and keep it private, it is yours, when you publish it, absent coprights, all bets are off.
So, the problems is that the published, copyrighted work is only your property to trade with in the market as a result of the government granting you monopoly rights to it.
At least with copyrights, the law contemplates two authors creating the exact same work independantly and both getting copyrights to it, patent law may contemplate two inventors inventing the same thing independantly, but gives monopoly rights to only one and no rights to the other.
"It's a distinction without a difference."
Not, quite, though I agree that what is going on with eminent domain is a mess. Still, don't they have to compensate you for their taking in those cases? Your copyrights and patents expire. (And last for different lengths of time as well.)
"Both of you respondents seem to be missing something, which is that I quite agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US..."
Well, I am not actually missing that. I do agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US.
"I was merely pointing out that the mere idea of these laws isn't somehow opposed to a free market."
Perhaps what you are missing is that while I like the free market, and while I disagree with your above statement, I think that copyrights and patents done right can possibly serve the public good despite preventing a free market in the goods they protect.
"Property rights are given with a purpose, too."
I think that property rights are more recognized than given. Do you disagree?
"From their point of view, they need to have the software in a known state so that they can troubleshoot the hardware."
Well then, what they need to do is provide a live CD that can test the hardware no matter what state the software is currently in. Once they know the hardware is good, they can give software support or not based on what is on the hardware.
"Choose which you prefer... Free Markets, or locks and, or policemen. If you decide to have locks or policemen, your free markets are gone for works or goods protected by either."
Want to try again? Copyrights and patents are given to authors and inventors exclusively. Exclusive as in monopoly. The government gives them. Monopolies and free markets don't really mix well together.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
These rights are given by the government. They give authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Exclusive as in monopoly.
They are given with a purpose as well - to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
"My point was not anti-copyright. My point was that copyright is inherently a monopoly and thus there cannot be free trade,"
Bingo! Choose which you prefer... Free Markets, or copyrights and, or patents. If you decide to have copyrights or patents, your free markets are gone for works or goods protected by either.
Now perhaps you think that government granted copyrights solve the problem better than the free market could, fine, make the case, but don't take copyright or patent protection to the detriment of the free market and then cry loudly to let the markets deal with the problems when people want problems fixed.
BTW, I get your point and agree, that was the generic "you" above in case I was not clear...
"You've obviously never been involved in putting out a CD."
Since you have, perhaps you care to comment on the advisability of switching over to the DVD format instead. It looks like they can be profitably made for less. At least evidence would seem to suggest that.
"Actually one problem with making it a civil matter is the lower standard of proof, the lack of a right to an attorney"
But as it stands now, it is both is it not? They can still bring a civil case against you if they choose with the law as it stands. How would dropping the criminal side not be a win for the public?
Actually, I am not sure it is. I think the word balance is the problem. There does not need to be a balance (equality) of any sort. There just needs to be enough of a tradeoff to get the producers to produce and publish enough works to serve the publics needs.
"Got a better proposal?"
Well, perhaps a crazy one to kick off the discussion. In any case involving the "state" and a jury, quiz the jury on the law, if they all know it, the case proceeds, if they don't, case dismissed. if the government wants to enforce laws, they better see to it that they educate the public as to what they are. Pros? Cons?
I am in the Bahamas. Funny thing is, from what I understand, the U.S. wil not honour the copyrights on our laws in the U.S.
"Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law."
I have never heard anyone mention anything in the U.S. constitution that says there needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. There needs to be benefits to the people perhaps. (Science and the useful arts?)
Now you may be right on the second sentence though.
"What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512."
Why file suit for every infringement? Why not only the ones that look like they will cause you economic harm?
What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright!
"I think the point you're missing is that in both cases there's an implicit threat hanging over anyone who uses their software."
Actually, I think it is you who missed the point I made. To my knowledge, no one has ever had problems if they are a simple user of a GPL program. Now the story is different for those who make and distribute or sell copies and for those who make or sell derivatives.
If you know of people getting in trouble for simply running GPL programs, I would like to hear about it.
At least I have never read of the BSA knocking because people were distributing or selling software copyrighted by another, rather the articles are about them knocking because a company buys one licensed version and installs it multiple times or some variation on that theme. Some even may have purchased all the copies they have installed but just not tracked the licenses properly.
Using a bit of software rather than trading in it.
Now, I imagine that they may knock in the trading cases as well, but not nearly so many businesses trade in software as use software.
So, your point may apply to the former, but do you hold that it applies to the latter as well?
"This assumes that there will still be enough people around who will be willing to pay at all. I know many people who go out of their way to pay for nothing - be it software, music, or movies."
And if there aren't, there are a few possibilities...
Creators will stop creating as they are not being paid and there won't be much at all to pay nothing for.
Creators will insist on getting paid up front for creating things.
Creators will create anyway because they are driven to express themselves.
Instead of really well produced, high budget junk, those people will only get poorly produced, no budget junk for their no-money.
Etc.
"Basically, if you're writing commercial software, you better have an online service or technology licensing program attached to it to make decent profits."
Hey, markets change. Trends change. Tastes change. Granted, this is not fair but... The pet rock vendors are not doing too well these days from what I understand. At least not on the pet rock line.
Slashdot Mirror
Not implement, pay for it. Fund means pay for.
all the best,
drew
"And where exactly do you think the money going to do that is going to come from?"
Perhaps I wasn't too clear.
Are the members paying yearly licensing fees (or average yearly purchase costs) for their CAD programs now? If you could wink and ignore the chicken and egg problem, couldn't they fund the Free Software replacement with a portion of those fees? perhaps they would need to pool with their other continent/country counterparts?
all the best,
drew
"No. In the same way the writers institute of Japan couldn't fund a better wordprocessor then MS Word, Wordperfect, or openoffice etc."
Fund it, not write it.
all the best,
drew
"I think you've rather "cooked the books" a bit here."
OK, but haven't you done the same thing?
Don't you think that The American Institute of Architects (for instance) could fund the development of a Free CAD application to suit their members needs for less than the members pay in licensing currently? Couldn't the associations oversee the work so the individual members did not have to deal with the day to day issues if they chose not to? Wouldn't this shift things back the other way?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
Dude! I ca nget Threes Company on BluRay? Where do I sign up?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
Bingo! That's what I was here to post.
Unless they propose to limit it to only those with registered copyrights. So for about thirty dollars (I think that is the last amount I read) you can get yourself exempted from this law? That is what is wanted?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"NO company on earth can EVER offer unlimited anything, unless they can fill the known universe with nothing but their product."
Not quite right. If they sell 28.8 dial up single login unlimited accounts, they need to give you all the account can give and you care to take. 24X7 and as much as you can suck down or spew up.
The problem arises when the tech of the account you get can provide you more than they are willing to let you have on an unlimited account. Yes? No?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
["Hey remember my old NES, that was cool"..."It needs to go in."]
Could be...
What's up with this quote:
"While development of Red Hat was discontinued in 2003, it directly spawned successors like Ubuntu, which aim to make desktop use of Linux commonplace."
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"That this happened can only damage Linux's reputation."
And who might have an interest in doing this? Not that I think it went down that way, but still.....
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
Strange UFO activity on the increase...
"So we'd lose all of the original work, and be able to 'mod' and 'remix' each other's derivative dreck. Woo hoo."
Well, you can find the first drafts of two novels here:
http://www.ourmedia.org/blog/17145
Who knows how things will shake out? Not that I call to get rid of copyright, but it does need some serious fixing though.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
As in two people can come up with the same invention without being aware of each other...
According to what I think your theory is, they should both then "own" that invention (get the patent) but the law does not work that way, does it?
In a free market, the buyer and the seller would negotiate the terms of use. The government would not be in the picture there.
Eg. I write a book. You want a copy, we negotiate a contract which says whether you can copy all or parts of it, whether you can let others see it, if you must place them under any contractual terms before letting them see it, etc. this might be how the free market could deal with the problem rather than the current non-free market of government granted monopolies.
The free market may come up with a better solution or it may not, but the current one is not a free market. No more than if the government only allowed one corporation to make jam.
Further, what's up with the requirement for fixing the work? Is that no more than a way for the literate to steal the works of hte illeterate? And why can some writings / designs and the like get sopyright protection and some can't? And if things work the way I think you envision, why can people pollute the public spaces by publishing their copyrighted works without permission?
all the best,
drew
"Once we've established this, then the rest of copyright and patent law is just details."
No the rest is not details. In the free market, without government granted monopolies, you could transfer your intellectual creations via contract with non-disclosure agreements and the like. They could be treated almost as trade secrets. But that is not what is being done with books these days, they are being published, or made public. Coke cannot make their secret formula public and still protect it.
When you take what you create and keep it private, it is yours, when you publish it, absent coprights, all bets are off.
So, the problems is that the published, copyrighted work is only your property to trade with in the market as a result of the government granting you monopoly rights to it.
At least with copyrights, the law contemplates two authors creating the exact same work independantly and both getting copyrights to it, patent law may contemplate two inventors inventing the same thing independantly, but gives monopoly rights to only one and no rights to the other.
"It's a distinction without a difference."
Not, quite, though I agree that what is going on with eminent domain is a mess. Still, don't they have to compensate you for their taking in those cases? Your copyrights and patents expire. (And last for different lengths of time as well.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"Both of you respondents seem to be missing something, which is that I quite agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US..."
Well, I am not actually missing that. I do agree that something is very wrong with copyright and patent law, certainly as it exists today in the US.
"I was merely pointing out that the mere idea of these laws isn't somehow opposed to a free market."
Perhaps what you are missing is that while I like the free market, and while I disagree with your above statement, I think that copyrights and patents done right can possibly serve the public good despite preventing a free market in the goods they protect.
"Property rights are given with a purpose, too."
I think that property rights are more recognized than given. Do you disagree?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"From their point of view, they need to have the software in a known state so that they can troubleshoot the hardware."
Well then, what they need to do is provide a live CD that can test the hardware no matter what state the software is currently in. Once they know the hardware is good, they can give software support or not based on what is on the hardware.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"Choose which you prefer... Free Markets, or locks and, or policemen. If you decide to have locks or policemen, your free markets are gone for works or goods protected by either."
Want to try again? Copyrights and patents are given to authors and inventors exclusively. Exclusive as in monopoly. The government gives them. Monopolies and free markets don't really mix well together.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"I call BS on this."
Call away, I am nt buying.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
These rights are given by the government. They give authors and inventors exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Exclusive as in monopoly.
They are given with a purpose as well - to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
"My point was not anti-copyright. My point was that copyright is inherently a monopoly and thus there cannot be free trade,"
Bingo! Choose which you prefer... Free Markets, or copyrights and, or patents. If you decide to have copyrights or patents, your free markets are gone for works or goods protected by either.
Now perhaps you think that government granted copyrights solve the problem better than the free market could, fine, make the case, but don't take copyright or patent protection to the detriment of the free market and then cry loudly to let the markets deal with the problems when people want problems fixed.
BTW, I get your point and agree, that was the generic "you" above in case I was not clear...
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.
"You've obviously never been involved in putting out a CD."
Since you have, perhaps you care to comment on the advisability of switching over to the DVD format instead. It looks like they can be profitably made for less. At least evidence would seem to suggest that.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
"Actually one problem with making it a civil matter is the lower standard of proof, the lack of a right to an attorney"
But as it stands now, it is both is it not? They can still bring a civil case against you if they choose with the law as it stands. How would dropping the criminal side not be a win for the public?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
"It's implied."
Actually, I am not sure it is. I think the word balance is the problem. There does not need to be a balance (equality) of any sort. There just needs to be enough of a tradeoff to get the producers to produce and publish enough works to serve the publics needs.
"Got a better proposal?"
Well, perhaps a crazy one to kick off the discussion. In any case involving the "state" and a jury, quiz the jury on the law, if they all know it, the case proceeds, if they don't, case dismissed. if the government wants to enforce laws, they better see to it that they educate the public as to what they are. Pros? Cons?
I am in the Bahamas. Funny thing is, from what I understand, the U.S. wil not honour the copyrights on our laws in the U.S.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
"IIRC you can't pick and choose like that."
Well, I think you can. Perhaps a lawyer would like to chime in.
You have to be much more careful with trademarks though from what I understand.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1QealrmLk
Paper Plane 002 Take 001
"Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law."
I have never heard anyone mention anything in the U.S. constitution that says there needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. There needs to be benefits to the people perhaps. (Science and the useful arts?)
Now you may be right on the second sentence though.
"What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512."
Why file suit for every infringement? Why not only the ones that look like they will cause you economic harm?
What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright!
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
"I think the point you're missing is that in both cases there's an implicit threat hanging over anyone who uses their software."
Actually, I think it is you who missed the point I made. To my knowledge, no one has ever had problems if they are a simple user of a GPL program. Now the story is different for those who make and distribute or sell copies and for those who make or sell derivatives.
If you know of people getting in trouble for simply running GPL programs, I would like to hear about it.
all the best,
drew
At least I have never read of the BSA knocking because people were distributing or selling software copyrighted by another, rather the articles are about them knocking because a company buys one licensed version and installs it multiple times or some variation on that theme. Some even may have purchased all the copies they have installed but just not tracked the licenses properly.
Using a bit of software rather than trading in it.
Now, I imagine that they may knock in the trading cases as well, but not nearly so many businesses trade in software as use software.
So, your point may apply to the former, but do you hold that it applies to the latter as well?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
"This assumes that there will still be enough people around who will be willing to pay at all. I know many people who go out of their way to pay for nothing - be it software, music, or movies."
And if there aren't, there are a few possibilities...
Creators will stop creating as they are not being paid and there won't be much at all to pay nothing for.
Creators will insist on getting paid up front for creating things.
Creators will create anyway because they are driven to express themselves.
Instead of really well produced, high budget junk, those people will only get poorly produced, no budget junk for their no-money.
Etc.
"Basically, if you're writing commercial software, you better have an online service or technology licensing program attached to it to make decent profits."
Hey, markets change. Trends change. Tastes change. Granted, this is not fair but... The pet rock vendors are not doing too well these days from what I understand. At least not on the pet rock line.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!