"What I find all wrong about copyright, as it is right now, is that it also gives the right to _kill_ a work of art or a program. You can buy the copyright to something for the _sole_ purpose of burying it 6 ft deep. I.e., making sure no more copies of it will be made.
Which was _not_ the purpose of copyright in the first place. The idea was to secure a source of income for those publishing books, _but_ that was only a means to another end: having those books available to society. Using copyright as a way to make them UNavailable, is IMHO contrary to the whole spirit and idea of copyright."
You are so right on this. There needs to be compulsory licenses at least to prevednt this practice. Perhaps they only need to kick in when the copyright owners refuse to keep the work available to the mass market at mass market prices.
"And just for the sake of a wanton comparison with Soviet Russia, I find it stupid that while we all were/are outraged when a dictatorship tries to suppress a book, we all shrug and find it normal when a corporation does the same via copyright. I mean, geesh, Stalin could have just bought the exclusive distribution rights in the USSR of the exact same works, and killed them via copyright, and we'd all suddenly no longer find it abhominable. It would be just normal business. Think about it."
You are certainly racking up the good points. Perhaps he could even have used "eminent domain" theories to take the work in the first place.
"So IMHO the copyright should only last as long as people can still order that book or program or music from you, for no more than the original price (i.e., no "yeah, it's still available, but we'll charge 10,000,000$ for it" scams), and have it delivered within a reasonable time frame. The moment that's no longer possible, the copyright should become public domain.
It would also be a self-regulating kinda thing. It's up to the company in case to decide when it's no longer profitable to keep that stock of old books, just for the 1-2 people per year still ordering it. When they decide it's no longer profitable to play that game, sure, make it public domain. But ffs, don't bury it."
This would work. An alternative would be to have all copyrights pass back to the original authors under something like a CC BY-SA or some other copyleft license. This would allow the authors to try earning some more out of their works and at the same time let the general public get access to the works as well for copying, creating derivatives and making money if they can.
"So, again, I have nothing against copyright as a way for authors to make money. Beats not having those works available in the first place. Maybe it's not the perfect system, but it's the best we have so far."
No, I disagree, in fact, I think we have had a better copyright system in the past and have been making it steadily worse.
I sometimes can't decide if I should fight to make it better, or fight to make it so bad that everyone cries foul and calls for scrapping the present system and trying to design a better one from scratch.
Hey, here is a new way for small countries to profit:
Sign on to the copyright conventions. Have citizens publish hugh quantities of material, never mind the quality. Then try to extradite foreigners for copyright violations. Have hugh fines and jail time on the books for such violations. Have local juries find them guilty, extract big money under threat of jail time in less than perfect facilities. Put fines in general fund so that citizens tax burden is reduced. This will "encourage" juries to bring in guilty verdicts.
Anyone see any problems with this? (I should hope so, but what actually would prevent it happening.)
"The original Slashdot item was linked throughout the blogosphere -- it will be interesting to see if AOL can extinguish this fire."
I would think it would be fairly easy to put out the fire. Instead of making the assurances below in public, put them in the TOS in an invariant section.
"AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums -- a common provision in most online publishers' terms of service. AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein says flatly: 'AOL does not read person-to-person communications.' He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
"Sorry:( - I thought you were talking in general terms: the idea that the author of GPL'd software has to make the source available to everyone on the internet is a common misconception."
Erryting cool.
You are right. It is a common misconception. The simplest thing is to provide the source with the binary and be done with it.
"Thus you only have to comply with one of either (a), (b) or (c)"
Sure, but in context of the thread, they have purchased the router, and thus have the binary and have not been supplied with the source. Therefore, a is out and that leaves b and c for consideration. C is only allowed for noncommercial distribution, which, if they are selling the routers is out as well. That leaves b. Right? Or have I missed something in the thread.
"No, they have to make the source of the kernel they use available to anyone who has the binary"
Actually, according to 3b,
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
they have to provide the source to any third party, not just people who have the binary.
Assuming they are not giving the phones away. If they are, they may get by with 3c.
It also comes down to the willingness of the juries in each location to convict for the same offence.
Also, it may be illegal in both countries but the penalty may be a maximum of 10 days in the local lockup in one country and life in the other. Could you still be extradited? What if there has never been a successful prosecution in the first country? Is the law even constitutional in the first country? How can you tell if charges have never been brought?
You may never get a conviction in your home country but may in the other country.
Hmmm, would "a jury of your peers" mean you could ask for the jury to be chosen from your home country?
Yes but the problem comes up if a country makes it illegal to, say, display a picture of a man without his shirt on or of a woman not wearing a full length skirt or dress. Now they try and extradite people from the U.S.A. who post such pictures.
If it is illegal in both countries, what is the problem of bringing the charges where the person lives. Things like this are going to come back and bite some people who were not expecting it.
all the best,
drew
BTW - I did not read the article, so take this with a grain of salt.
"You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you."
Yes, but the problem is, when someone posts my work without my permission, or in a fair use situation, AOL has no way of knowing.
Now the person's use may be considered fair use sine they are not taking commercial advantage of it while AOL's and cronies' may not be since they are taking commercial advantage.
The person posting under fair use may be violating their TOS, but how is AOL to know?
all the best,
drew
In any event, from here on, no one has any right to post my work anywhere where these sorts of terms are asserted.
"Essentially, what you're saying is it's okay if user requests get ignored becuase "that's how OSS works." Well, then don't bitch when someone writes up an article complaining that their requests aren't heard!"
Hey, everyone if free to express themselves, and everyone else is free to ignore them.
Now, if others find what we have to say beneficial, perhaps we wont be ignored.
"Those who aren't willing to CONTRIBUTE to an Open Source/Free Software project are not entitled to an opinion."
I think you could word/express this better.
Certainly they are entitled to an opinion. It is just that they are dreaming if they think they are entitled to have others take them seriously given that unwillingness. They are also dreaming if they expect to not get trouble for expressing them.
At least one of the reasons some feel ripped off by the cost od CDs is this:
They players send mixed messages about what you are buying.
I bought a lot of music as LPs. I re-bought some of the same music again as CDs. I had a lot of both ruined in a hurricane where I basically "lost" my house. Had to move out. Never moved back in. Over $200,000 of damage. Way under insured. Oh well.
Now, I would like to re-buy some of that same music again. But I am not going to, I am going to do without instead.
If one of the things we are buying is a license to a particular peice of music, then should we not get cheaper replacements that take into account our existing license?
If we are buying the medium and not the license, should it not cost less if we supply our own medium?
The world is changing to make these different options possible. They are still trying to sell us horse drawn carriages and candles when what we want are cars and electric lights.
"NOTHING else is as cheap. No pro sports, concerts, operas, plays, ballets, movies, dinners, truck shows, car races, or comedy clubs give you anywhere near that many hours of entertainment, for anywhere close that such a low price. Nor can you get any of your money back when you're finished "enjoying" anything I just listed, except for CDs."
Well, you got that wrong! The other bad boys in this copyright madness, the MPAA are related to people who will sell you a DVD with a good movie and a good soundtrack for about the same price.
So, wrong there. Now, you can listen to music on the radio for no money. Bam. At least some people will consider that a better deal. Could be wrong there as well.
"I've seen it time and time again, especially with electronics, umbrellas, and of course, digital watches, which, for some reason, seem like a good idea."
To my mind, cheap digital watches are a good idea for two reasons.
1. I am not likely to be held up by someone for mine. A rolex on the other hand...
2. A new watch is less that I paid to have my last Bulova repaired a few times when it was never actually repaired in the first place.
That Bulova is why I have been a cheap watch boy ever since.
It registered 60 minutes every 55 minutes from the day I bought it. (It was a dive watch rated to 300 metres iirc.)
Sent it in to be repaired. Months later it comes back. Go swimming, it fills up with water. Take it in an complain. "Oh no, sir, this is not a water proof watch." Go to show them the rating on the back and it is smooth. They have sent it back with a different back.
Send it in for repairs again anyway. Comes back and still does not keep good time iirc and I think it also fogged up inside just wearing it on my arm.
This was probably 20 to 25 years ago, so it may not have come back with the smooth back until after the second time in for repairs. The gist of everything is how things went down though.
License them CC BY-SA. I will gladly pay 10 cents per song for all songs I want. Further, to earm more money from me on the same music, at my request, track my purchases and I will pay you to custom burn CDs for me from the songs I have already purchased via download as a flac file.
I think I would buy an awful lot of music under those conditions. As it is, I have almost stopped buying music from the standard players once again. I am trying to send more money to local bands who play live.
As a matter of fact, I will buy a thousand dollars of music that I want in the first month such a plan is available to me. Believe me, the big boys have more than enough in their catalogues to set me back that thousand. I am not saying that I will buy a thousand dollars of their no good stuff under such terms though.
At those prices, I would even re-buy a lot of music that I once had but have had stolen and destroyed in a hurricane. As it is, I really want some of that music again, but I am going to do without rather than feeling ripped off by the big boys.
It doesn't need to scale if I am making a decent living from it.
So, if the result of Free Software is that only individuals or small groups can make money developing it, but anyone, including hugh corporations can make/save money using it, I would say it could still have a bright future.
If a patent lasts longer than the useful life of the invention covered by the patent, then the public gets little or no benefits by having the patent awarded.
The inventor could keep the invention as a trade secret and, especially if the invention is owned by a corporation, the public will run little or no risk of having the knowledge contained in the invention lost to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
"What I find all wrong about copyright, as it is right now, is that it also gives the right to _kill_ a work of art or a program. You can buy the copyright to something for the _sole_ purpose of burying it 6 ft deep. I.e., making sure no more copies of it will be made.
i gh t_Term_Reform#Legal_Proposals
i gh t_Term_Reform/Default
Which was _not_ the purpose of copyright in the first place. The idea was to secure a source of income for those publishing books, _but_ that was only a means to another end: having those books available to society. Using copyright as a way to make them UNavailable, is IMHO contrary to the whole spirit and idea of copyright."
You are so right on this. There needs to be compulsory licenses at least to prevednt this practice. Perhaps they only need to kick in when the copyright owners refuse to keep the work available to the mass market at mass market prices.
"And just for the sake of a wanton comparison with Soviet Russia, I find it stupid that while we all were/are outraged when a dictatorship tries to suppress a book, we all shrug and find it normal when a corporation does the same via copyright. I mean, geesh, Stalin could have just bought the exclusive distribution rights in the USSR of the exact same works, and killed them via copyright, and we'd all suddenly no longer find it abhominable. It would be just normal business. Think about it."
You are certainly racking up the good points. Perhaps he could even have used "eminent domain" theories to take the work in the first place.
"So IMHO the copyright should only last as long as people can still order that book or program or music from you, for no more than the original price (i.e., no "yeah, it's still available, but we'll charge 10,000,000$ for it" scams), and have it delivered within a reasonable time frame. The moment that's no longer possible, the copyright should become public domain.
It would also be a self-regulating kinda thing. It's up to the company in case to decide when it's no longer profitable to keep that stock of old books, just for the 1-2 people per year still ordering it. When they decide it's no longer profitable to play that game, sure, make it public domain. But ffs, don't bury it."
This would work. An alternative would be to have all copyrights pass back to the original authors under something like a CC BY-SA or some other copyleft license. This would allow the authors to try earning some more out of their works and at the same time let the general public get access to the works as well for copying, creating derivatives and making money if they can.
Check some of these legal proposals:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyr
especially this one:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyr
Again, great points.
all the best,
drew
"So, again, I have nothing against copyright as a way for authors to make money. Beats not having those works available in the first place. Maybe it's not the perfect system, but it's the best we have so far."
No, I disagree, in fact, I think we have had a better copyright system in the past and have been making it steadily worse.
I sometimes can't decide if I should fight to make it better, or fight to make it so bad that everyone cries foul and calls for scrapping the present system and trying to design a better one from scratch.
Hey, here is a new way for small countries to profit:
Sign on to the copyright conventions. Have citizens publish hugh quantities of material, never mind the quality. Then try to extradite foreigners for copyright violations. Have hugh fines and jail time on the books for such violations. Have local juries find them guilty, extract big money under threat of jail time in less than perfect facilities. Put fines in general fund so that citizens tax burden is reduced. This will "encourage" juries to bring in guilty verdicts.
Anyone see any problems with this? (I should hope so, but what actually would prevent it happening.)
all the best,
drew
"The original Slashdot item was linked throughout the blogosphere -- it will be interesting to see if AOL can extinguish this fire."
I would think it would be fairly easy to put out the fire. Instead of making the assurances below in public, put them in the TOS in an invariant section.
"AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums -- a common provision in most online publishers' terms of service. AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein says flatly: 'AOL does not read person-to-person communications.' He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
all the best,
drew
"Sorry :( - I thought you were talking in general terms: the idea that the author of GPL'd software has to make the source available to everyone on the internet is a common misconception."
Erryting cool.
You are right. It is a common misconception. The simplest thing is to provide the source with the binary and be done with it.
all the best,
drew
"Thus you only have to comply with one of either (a), (b) or (c)"
Sure, but in context of the thread, they have purchased the router, and thus have the binary and have not been supplied with the source. Therefore, a is out and that leaves b and c for consideration. C is only allowed for noncommercial distribution, which, if they are selling the routers is out as well. That leaves b. Right? Or have I missed something in the thread.
all the best,
drew
>-you are not a lawyer.
You are right, I am not a lawyer.
>you obviously haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I have some clue, but since IANAL, I can certainly be wrong. Even a lawyer can be wrong though.
>kindly STFU before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
I have been making a fool of myself for as long as I can remember, why stop now?
>that is all.
You are impolite. Also, I note that you are posting as AC, you do not rebut/correct what I have said, just claim it is incorrect. How is this helpful?
all the best,
drew
"No, they have to make the source of the kernel they use available to anyone who has the binary"
Actually, according to 3b,
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
they have to provide the source to any third party, not just people who have the binary.
Assuming they are not giving the phones away. If they are, they may get by with 3c.
all the best,
drew
"What's worth doing is worth doing for money..."
I don't want to be a gigolo thanks.
It also comes down to the willingness of the juries in each location to convict for the same offence.
Also, it may be illegal in both countries but the penalty may be a maximum of 10 days in the local lockup in one country and life in the other. Could you still be extradited? What if there has never been a successful prosecution in the first country? Is the law even constitutional in the first country? How can you tell if charges have never been brought?
You may never get a conviction in your home country but may in the other country.
Hmmm, would "a jury of your peers" mean you could ask for the jury to be chosen from your home country?
all the best,
drew
Yes but the problem comes up if a country makes it illegal to, say, display a picture of a man without his shirt on or of a woman not wearing a full length skirt or dress. Now they try and extradite people from the U.S.A. who post such pictures.
If it is illegal in both countries, what is the problem of bringing the charges where the person lives. Things like this are going to come back and bite some people who were not expecting it.
all the best,
drew
BTW - I did not read the article, so take this with a grain of salt.
"You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you."
Yes, but the problem is, when someone posts my work without my permission, or in a fair use situation, AOL has no way of knowing.
Now the person's use may be considered fair use sine they are not taking commercial advantage of it while AOL's and cronies' may not be since they are taking commercial advantage.
The person posting under fair use may be violating their TOS, but how is AOL to know?
all the best,
drew
In any event, from here on, no one has any right to post my work anywhere where these sorts of terms are asserted.
"Essentially, what you're saying is it's okay if user requests get ignored becuase "that's how OSS works." Well, then don't bitch when someone writes up an article complaining that their requests aren't heard!"
Hey, everyone if free to express themselves, and everyone else is free to ignore them.
Now, if others find what we have to say beneficial, perhaps we wont be ignored.
all the best,
drew
"Those who aren't willing to CONTRIBUTE to an Open Source/Free Software project are not entitled to an opinion."
I think you could word/express this better.
Certainly they are entitled to an opinion. It is just that they are dreaming if they think they are entitled to have others take them seriously given that unwillingness. They are also dreaming if they expect to not get trouble for expressing them.
all the best,
drew
Personally, my imagination gives me some of the best bang for my buck.
all the best,
drew
this is because there is no free market in these goods. they are selling government granted monopoly goods.
all the best,
drew
Just a bit of info for you.
At least one of the reasons some feel ripped off by the cost od CDs is this:
They players send mixed messages about what you are buying.
I bought a lot of music as LPs. I re-bought some of the same music again as CDs. I had a lot of both ruined in a hurricane where I basically "lost" my house. Had to move out. Never moved back in. Over $200,000 of damage. Way under insured. Oh well.
Now, I would like to re-buy some of that same music again. But I am not going to, I am going to do without instead.
If one of the things we are buying is a license to a particular peice of music, then should we not get cheaper replacements that take into account our existing license?
If we are buying the medium and not the license, should it not cost less if we supply our own medium?
The world is changing to make these different options possible. They are still trying to sell us horse drawn carriages and candles when what we want are cars and electric lights.
all the best,
drew
"NOTHING else is as cheap. No pro sports, concerts, operas, plays, ballets, movies, dinners, truck shows, car races, or comedy clubs give you anywhere near that many hours of entertainment, for anywhere close that such a low price. Nor can you get any of your money back when you're finished "enjoying" anything I just listed, except for CDs."
Well, you got that wrong! The other bad boys in this copyright madness, the MPAA are related to people who will sell you a DVD with a good movie and a good soundtrack for about the same price.
So, wrong there. Now, you can listen to music on the radio for no money. Bam. At least some people will consider that a better deal. Could be wrong there as well.
Project Gutenberg - Bam!
Hey, even Slashdot - Bam!
all the best,
drew
"I've seen it time and time again, especially with electronics, umbrellas, and of course, digital watches, which, for some reason, seem like a good idea."
To my mind, cheap digital watches are a good idea for two reasons.
1. I am not likely to be held up by someone for mine. A rolex on the other hand...
2. A new watch is less that I paid to have my last Bulova repaired a few times when it was never actually repaired in the first place.
That Bulova is why I have been a cheap watch boy ever since.
It registered 60 minutes every 55 minutes from the day I bought it. (It was a dive watch rated to 300 metres iirc.)
Sent it in to be repaired. Months later it comes back. Go swimming, it fills up with water. Take it in an complain. "Oh no, sir, this is not a water proof watch." Go to show them the rating on the back and it is smooth. They have sent it back with a different back.
Send it in for repairs again anyway. Comes back and still does not keep good time iirc and I think it also fogged up inside just wearing it on my arm.
This was probably 20 to 25 years ago, so it may not have come back with the smooth back until after the second time in for repairs. The gist of everything is how things went down though.
all the best,
drew
Sure, but if they could buy them up and license all the songs as CC BY-SA?
They would need to buy the underlying copyrights as well though.
all teh best,
drew
under certain conditions.
License them CC BY-SA. I will gladly pay 10 cents per song for all songs I want. Further, to earm more money from me on the same music, at my request, track my purchases and I will pay you to custom burn CDs for me from the songs I have already purchased via download as a flac file.
I think I would buy an awful lot of music under those conditions. As it is, I have almost stopped buying music from the standard players once again. I am trying to send more money to local bands who play live.
As a matter of fact, I will buy a thousand dollars of music that I want in the first month such a plan is available to me. Believe me, the big boys have more than enough in their catalogues to set me back that thousand. I am not saying that I will buy a thousand dollars of their no good stuff under such terms though.
At those prices, I would even re-buy a lot of music that I once had but have had stolen and destroyed in a hurricane. As it is, I really want some of that music again, but I am going to do without rather than feeling ripped off by the big boys.
all the best,
drew
It doesn't need to scale if I am making a decent living from it.
So, if the result of Free Software is that only individuals or small groups can make money developing it, but anyone, including hugh corporations can make/save money using it, I would say it could still have a bright future.
all the best
drew
Why not charge for the product? Nothing stopping you if you supply the source with the binary right?
Am I right in thinking that if I supply all the source up front, I do not have to provide anything to anyone on request?
These assume GPL code.
all the best,
drew
Let's see if we can agree on something basic.
If a patent lasts longer than the useful life of the invention covered by the patent, then the public gets little or no benefits by having the patent awarded.
The inventor could keep the invention as a trade secret and, especially if the invention is owned by a corporation, the public will run little or no risk of having the knowledge contained in the invention lost to the public.
Does this sound about right?
all the best,
drew
Well, it is not a model I intend to adopt or support if I can help it.
Naturally, they may not care.
all the best,
drew
Except that the real question that needs to be answered is whether anything other than an actual printing press is "the press" is it not?
I mean, the law talks of freedom of the press and not freedom of journalism right?
all the best,
drew