Here's the basic, simple justification as to why copyright infringement and theft are unrelated: theft has always beem a crime. It's not a tort, or an unpaid bill, it's a crime. In the case of copyright infringement, criminalizing is a recent development of the last century.
If copyright infringement is and has always been theft, how come it has only been a tort for most of its existence?
On the contrary, the basic notion of theft is the deprivation of a scarse good. Because information is not scarse, it is not theft. It is a crime indeed, but it is not legally the same crime as theft, nor is it ethically the same crime as theft. If it WERE the same crime as theft, the Constitution would have been drafted to define a copyright as such -- but it didn't.
As for "morally" -- morals are arbitrary, so perhaps it is against your system of morals. But most morals are either based on ethics or religion. There is no mention of copyright in any major religion, so copyright infringement is not religiosly immoral. Most systems of ethics attach something to owning the right to copy works, but none of the mainstream ethicists have made the leap from copyright infringement to theft.
So you're pretty much on your own on both regards. There's the rest of the world's opinion, and then there's yours. Hm.
Ok, security is harmed. Given. But to me there is a much larger problem with the centralization of the Internet: control.
Think for a minute, what country has about the most centralized internet backbone? That would be China, or, The Great Firewall of China. Look at it this way, in order to Do Something Really Bad in China, they have to implement it on one set of backbones with one central authority.
Now that the backbone is mostly owned by big business in the United States, it centralizes control of the Internet toward big businesses. Which yeah, could really pretty much suck.
<sarcasim>
Indeed it is although piracy would generally be tried in a maritime court, not a civil court. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that these high schoolers could afford boats.</sarcasim>
I'm sorry. I have to anal about this. Look through the Danish or United States laws passed on copyright, and you won't ever find the word "piracy." That's because the word piracy -- which is used to describe boarding someone else's seagoing vessil without permission and plundering -- is totally unrelated to copyright infringement in the English language. The reason the word "piracy" is used is because "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as bad. It doesn't sound as bad because it is not as bad. When you literally steal goods, you are depriving them of something. When you infringe on a copyright, you are depriving no one of anything but just that -- a copyright.
The reason this is important is, (1) people need not be confused by words that don't actually exist in their used context, (2) you can talk seriously about what constitutes "copyright infringement." If you make a personal copy, is that copyright infringement? Legally, no. But because piracy has no legal definition, the copyright holders are free to apply the word at their discretion. Ie: Watching a DVD on Linux is piracy. -- there's no legal definition for piracy, so prove it wasn't! Now simply watching a DVD on Linux is not copyright infringement, and I can prove it because there is a legal definition of copyright infringement.
When you use the word "piracy" you loose credibility with me. You are buying into the myth that copyright infringement is a legal and ethical parallel for stealing. In reality, there is no such thing as intellectual property or piracy of that property. There is a right to copy a work, and copying a work without that right is something else entirely.
So... having a consultant own the code is not a slimeball thing to do. It makes good sense in some businesses. The important thing is having that spelled out in the contract. Then, everybody knows what they are getting in to.
Since these are both for-profit businesses and can hire lawyers, I would agree with you in that case. But I don't generally agree with the idea that just because a contract was entered into with freewill, that it is an ethical contract.
In this case, I would just advice the customer to move along. I've had to deal, as a programmer, with consultants who are anal about licensing you code that you paid to produce -- and it made my job a living hell.
This is between the contractor and the customer, to negotiate as they see fit.
The same silly argument that no one is forcing a customer to take a bum deal had been used to defend loan sharks, dangerously unsafe cars, and sweatshops. In all cases, it's untrue. Even though two parties enter into a contract of their own "free will," the terms of the contract can still be unethical.
I respect the open source movement and I think free (as in speech and beer) software is a Good Thing(tm), but I think saying coders are morally obligated to give away their source code is a step too far.
Some middle ground here. Obviously the free software vs proprietary software debate isn't going to solve anything in this context. The consultants are clearly developing proprietary software.
Having said that, it is pretty low down dirty and slimy to have a company PAY YOU to write a program, PAY YOU to maintain a program, PAY YOU to give them a copy of the program, then you turn around and claim that they are bound by a license. If they commissioned the work to be done, you shouldn't be trying to shove a license up their butts.
It's just my opinion, but I've had to deal with these kind of consulting companies. If the customer is reading this story, some advice: Hire yourself a different consultant.
And if the consultant is reading this post: You are over stepping your ethical rights. They paid for it, they should control it.
The EFF is less effective because it doesn't have the money or resources of - say - the ACLU or the MPAA. If you give them more money, it levels the playing field and they will be more effective.
When you remove all trust from the producer/consumer relationship, you lose respect. When you trust unconditionally, you get burned.
Let's compare this to traditional commerce. I'll even make the totally incorrect and legally invalid jump of calling "copyright infringement" by the title "stealing."
Let's say you go to a retailer and buy a hammer. Because the retailer does not trust you completely, he may have closed circuit cameras or electronic gateways at the exists that identify magnetic strips in items. So the store owner doesn't completely trust you, but he doesn't really interfere with what you're doing either.
But here's the difference. After I buy a hammer, there's absolutely nothing stopping me from using the hammer improperly. I own the hammer after I pay for it and leave the store.
DRM, on the other hand, extends that mistrust well past the end of the transaction. At this point, you're interfering with your users ability to use his hammer. It doesn't matter if your DRM is 100% effective and only blocks illegal activity -- law inforcement is not the job or responsibility of the vendor. A vendor of physical goods can only interfere with me when I'm in his store or fleaing with stolen goods. If I'm at home, well after the transaction, doing something illegal, he is obligated to defer the matter to the police.
With DRM, *any* DRM no matter how effective, you are defering law enforcement to a vendor. It doesn't matter if the DRM system doesn't limit any legal activities -- if it limits any activities -- at all -- it is at odds with a basic concept of democracy: that vigilantism is not acceptable. Call it what you will -- "DRM" or "Artists Rights" or whatever, but what it boils down to vigilantism. Because vigilantism and orderly society are mutually exclusive, I can only draw the conclusion that any support of DRM is also an attack on democracy.
What is implicit in the Schiller's statement... "There are some real challenges in DRM, It's important to protect artists' rights and we want to do that...but no one has been able to make a model that works."
So Apple supports the idea of DRM, just not the implementation? That's just as bad if you ask me, and I also think this looks new. In the past, I've only seen Apple on the side of "no DRM" -- now it seems they would be willing to implement DRM if it were done in a way that doesn't interfere with the user experience?
Not true. They can pull the code instead of releasing it under the GPL. They own the copyright, and they decide which license it is distributed under. If this not a GPL compatible license then it will have to be removed.
No, in order to distribute their code (which they've already done), they already released their code under GPL and he's licensed to use it under GPL.
Yes, yes, to each his own. Everyone can use their own methodology, right? Well, not really. Unless you work in a one person company, or you're a free lancer, or you're CowboyNeal and you never do any work;-) you have to use the same methodology as your coworkers.
Personally I like XP. For all the usual reasons. But, you see, my boss doesn't like for all the usual reasons. So I don't use XP. In the corporate world, it's "to each his boss's own."
Actually the Microsoft methodology can be more cloesly compared to the traditional waterful development model than XP. EP is similar to more Open Source development models. Here's why.
Both XP and Agile advocate self organizing teams. This is most certainly how Open Source works. Corporate development models force developers and users into certain roles without any real organic feel for who really should do what.
The point of pair programming is to put more than one eye on the code. Yes, it most certainly does slow a project down but it also increases stability. In most corporate waterful environments, more than one eye has not seen the code. Most Microsoft bugs are careless mistakes. With Linux, although there is no real pair programming, Linus or an experienced developer does look over all submitted code. It's the same end result.
Microsoft has very long periods inbetween releases. Not even final releases are "production quality." Linux has incremental releases more similar to XP. The only difference is, because Linux is so mission critical, they don't label each release as "production quality" -- but compared to most commercial software, a BitKeeper (they don't use CVS) snapshot of the Linux kernel is better than "production quality" code from MS.
Other comparisons, such as an on-site user, simply do not apply to non-desktop software.
We're asking slashdot for legal advice now? Not only do we all know Perl, Ruby, Python or -- god help us -- Camel, but we all are now legal experts in all matters of law too?
Okay then! My pulled-right-out-of-my-ass guess is, "sure, why not" -- there you have your legal opinion from a qualified expert(*).
(*) Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, but I do play one on Slashdot!
Your problem is common. Sales are desporate to make sales, and development staff get defensive. This is common of a development house like your own. I think you should read Managing High Intensity Internet Projects. It goes over some of these common problems, as well as some solutions.
Something else that minimizes risk is an evolutionairy development model. Your IEEE types will hate it, but the idea is that at any given time, the software can be deployed in a short period of time at whatever level of functionality there currently is. It simply minimizes risk by letting the users walk away from the project without getting "burned" by not having a product at all.
flexibility, and better compatibility with the rest of the technology world.
...
I am a freelance writer; I demand the best in mobile computing.
There's no equivalent for the versatility of Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint®. Toolbars and menus customize themselves to the way I work.
Mobile computing? Versatility? I could swear she was the free-lance writer who wrote the mission statements of a dozen busted dot-coms. No wonder she's looking for cheaper hardware!
I wonder if the switch helps her utilize her verticle portals too!
Actually, the rapid change in the language is pretty new. For the longest time, 1.5.x was stable, and years before 1.4.x was mostly the same. Then, 1.6 happened. Python hit some kind of critical mass where Guido decided to more or less open the flood gates of third party suggestions (called PEP's in Pythonlore). Another key factor was the rapid increase of XML libraries and concerns, as well as other quickly changing technologies.
The author of this article doesn't mention it, but many Python programmers are upset with the rapid changes in the language, and it is very contrary to Python's history and philosophy. It looks like for now though, Python is slowing back down after implementing a new system of object orientation that really implements each variable/function/whatnot as an object. 2.2, hopefully, is here to stay for a while.
I only have voicemail. I have a cell phone, but when I call companies, I block my phone number.
Very simple. T.M. never leave messages and I only give my cell phone number to friends -- never *EVER* to companies. Corporate America has abused the consumer phone system so I've simply denied them from calling me unless they want to leave a message.;)
It never even rings.
We use a Wiki where I work, but it's really only something for a small development team. Basically we put all our plans up, useful links, etc. Some tips:
Don't make blank pages. If you aren't ready to write content for a node, don't create the node.
Refactor a Wiki's organization like you would source code.
Use a Wiki like a FAQ. When someone asks a question, add a node to the Wiki.
As for requirements management? The only real way it falls short is, my boss wants to build "requirements documents" to archive and "sign off" on. I'm sort of working on my own version of wiki 2 docbook but it's still alot of effort.
What is this business of just turning DRM off? For those of you who didn't read the article/don't remember,
When you first run Windows Media Player, it will ask if you want to keep copy protection on, and you can turn it off if you wish. If you missed that dialog box, it is still easy to turn off copy protection by going into the Tools|Options menu. Click on the Copy Music tab, and under Copy Settings, uncheck the 'Protect Content' box.
Ok, so you can turn off the "screw me in the ass" option? I'd like to know, what's the catch? Will this feature be going away in future versions? Someone, please fill me in.
I suggest you read some of the works of Philip Greenspun on this topic. He's part MIT-professor, part photographer, and cofounder of Arsdigita. In particular, you might want to read:
Slashdot Mirror
If copyright infringement is and has always been theft, how come it has only been a tort for most of its existence?
As for "morally" -- morals are arbitrary, so perhaps it is against your system of morals. But most morals are either based on ethics or religion. There is no mention of copyright in any major religion, so copyright infringement is not religiosly immoral. Most systems of ethics attach something to owning the right to copy works, but none of the mainstream ethicists have made the leap from copyright infringement to theft.
So you're pretty much on your own on both regards. There's the rest of the world's opinion, and then there's yours. Hm.
Think for a minute, what country has about the most centralized internet backbone? That would be China, or, The Great Firewall of China. Look at it this way, in order to Do Something Really Bad in China, they have to implement it on one set of backbones with one central authority.
Now that the backbone is mostly owned by big business in the United States, it centralizes control of the Internet toward big businesses. Which yeah, could really pretty much suck.
I'm sorry. I have to anal about this. Look through the Danish or United States laws passed on copyright, and you won't ever find the word "piracy." That's because the word piracy -- which is used to describe boarding someone else's seagoing vessil without permission and plundering -- is totally unrelated to copyright infringement in the English language. The reason the word "piracy" is used is because "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as bad. It doesn't sound as bad because it is not as bad. When you literally steal goods, you are depriving them of something. When you infringe on a copyright, you are depriving no one of anything but just that -- a copyright.
The reason this is important is, (1) people need not be confused by words that don't actually exist in their used context, (2) you can talk seriously about what constitutes "copyright infringement." If you make a personal copy, is that copyright infringement? Legally, no. But because piracy has no legal definition, the copyright holders are free to apply the word at their discretion. Ie: Watching a DVD on Linux is piracy. -- there's no legal definition for piracy, so prove it wasn't! Now simply watching a DVD on Linux is not copyright infringement, and I can prove it because there is a legal definition of copyright infringement.
When you use the word "piracy" you loose credibility with me. You are buying into the myth that copyright infringement is a legal and ethical parallel for stealing. In reality, there is no such thing as intellectual property or piracy of that property. There is a right to copy a work, and copying a work without that right is something else entirely.
In this case, I would just advice the customer to move along. I've had to deal, as a programmer, with consultants who are anal about licensing you code that you paid to produce -- and it made my job a living hell.
Having said that, it is pretty low down dirty and slimy to have a company PAY YOU to write a program, PAY YOU to maintain a program, PAY YOU to give them a copy of the program, then you turn around and claim that they are bound by a license. If they commissioned the work to be done, you shouldn't be trying to shove a license up their butts.
It's just my opinion, but I've had to deal with these kind of consulting companies. If the customer is reading this story, some advice: Hire yourself a different consultant.
And if the consultant is reading this post: You are over stepping your ethical rights. They paid for it, they should control it.
And then I read this story. :)
Money talks.
Let's say you go to a retailer and buy a hammer. Because the retailer does not trust you completely, he may have closed circuit cameras or electronic gateways at the exists that identify magnetic strips in items. So the store owner doesn't completely trust you, but he doesn't really interfere with what you're doing either.
But here's the difference. After I buy a hammer, there's absolutely nothing stopping me from using the hammer improperly. I own the hammer after I pay for it and leave the store.
DRM, on the other hand, extends that mistrust well past the end of the transaction. At this point, you're interfering with your users ability to use his hammer. It doesn't matter if your DRM is 100% effective and only blocks illegal activity -- law inforcement is not the job or responsibility of the vendor. A vendor of physical goods can only interfere with me when I'm in his store or fleaing with stolen goods. If I'm at home, well after the transaction, doing something illegal, he is obligated to defer the matter to the police.
With DRM, *any* DRM no matter how effective, you are defering law enforcement to a vendor. It doesn't matter if the DRM system doesn't limit any legal activities -- if it limits any activities -- at all -- it is at odds with a basic concept of democracy: that vigilantism is not acceptable. Call it what you will -- "DRM" or "Artists Rights" or whatever, but what it boils down to vigilantism. Because vigilantism and orderly society are mutually exclusive, I can only draw the conclusion that any support of DRM is also an attack on democracy.
So Apple supports the idea of DRM, just not the implementation? That's just as bad if you ask me, and I also think this looks new. In the past, I've only seen Apple on the side of "no DRM" -- now it seems they would be willing to implement DRM if it were done in a way that doesn't interfere with the user experience?
Just an observation.
No, in order to distribute their code (which they've already done), they already released their code under GPL and he's licensed to use it under GPL.
Personally I like XP. For all the usual reasons. But, you see, my boss doesn't like for all the usual reasons. So I don't use XP. In the corporate world, it's "to each his boss's own."
- Both XP and Agile advocate self organizing teams. This is most certainly how Open Source works. Corporate development models force developers and users into certain roles without any real organic feel for who really should do what.
- The point of pair programming is to put more than one eye on the code. Yes, it most certainly does slow a project down but it also increases stability. In most corporate waterful environments, more than one eye has not seen the code. Most Microsoft bugs are careless mistakes. With Linux, although there is no real pair programming, Linus or an experienced developer does look over all submitted code. It's the same end result.
- Microsoft has very long periods inbetween releases. Not even final releases are "production quality." Linux has incremental releases more similar to XP. The only difference is, because Linux is so mission critical, they don't label each release as "production quality" -- but compared to most commercial software, a BitKeeper (they don't use CVS) snapshot of the Linux kernel is better than "production quality" code from MS.
Other comparisons, such as an on-site user, simply do not apply to non-desktop software.Ummmm. Let's start with this site if massive media companies want to cut down on bandwidth!
Okay then! My pulled-right-out-of-my-ass guess is, "sure, why not" -- there you have your legal opinion from a qualified expert(*).
(*) Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, but I do play one on Slashdot!
Something else that minimizes risk is an evolutionairy development model. Your IEEE types will hate it, but the idea is that at any given time, the software can be deployed in a short period of time at whatever level of functionality there currently is. It simply minimizes risk by letting the users walk away from the project without getting "burned" by not having a product at all.
- Windows XP gives me more choices and
- flexibility, and better compatibility with the rest of the technology world.
...
Mobile computing? Versatility? I could swear she was the free-lance writer who wrote the mission statements of a dozen busted dot-coms. No wonder she's looking for cheaper hardware!I am a freelance writer; I demand the best in mobile computing.
There's no equivalent for the versatility of Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint®. Toolbars and menus customize themselves to the way I work.
I wonder if the switch helps her utilize her verticle portals too!
The author of this article doesn't mention it, but many Python programmers are upset with the rapid changes in the language, and it is very contrary to Python's history and philosophy. It looks like for now though, Python is slowing back down after implementing a new system of object orientation that really implements each variable/function/whatnot as an object. 2.2, hopefully, is here to stay for a while.
I only have voicemail. I have a cell phone, but when I call companies, I block my phone number. Very simple. T.M. never leave messages and I only give my cell phone number to friends -- never *EVER* to companies. Corporate America has abused the consumer phone system so I've simply denied them from calling me unless they want to leave a message. ;)
It never even rings.
- Don't make blank pages. If you aren't ready to write content for a node, don't create the node.
- Refactor a Wiki's organization like you would source code.
- Use a Wiki like a FAQ. When someone asks a question, add a node to the Wiki.
As for requirements management? The only real way it falls short is, my boss wants to build "requirements documents" to archive and "sign off" on. I'm sort of working on my own version of wiki 2 docbook but it's still alot of effort.Perl:
print system('diff chimps.genome humans.gnome | wc -l') / system('cat chimps.genome humans.gnome | wc -l');
- Career Guide for Engineers and Computer Scientists -- a humour look at the role of education in job seeking. Not very serious, but a good read and actually very thought provoking
- How I Became a Scum-Sucking Yuppie Materialist and his advice on investing are a good and geeky introduction to money.
When all else fails, read Seven Habits of Highly Annoying People.