In that case, companies would ultimately screw everyone over by exploiting their code. Just look at FreeBSD for example.
I don't see Microsoft rushing to contribute back to the TCP/IP stack they used under the BSD license. I'm not convinced that IBM would be so keen to contribute work that could be used to build proprietary products by their competitors.
And FreeBSD isn't Linux in terms of success.
However, in spite of your efforts to portray it otherwise, this wasn't an anti-BSD rant....
I'm sure there's an example out there of the utter anguish and despair that would happen if the GPL were more free.
Strawman hysterics #1. I never said there would be utter anguish and despair. In fact I said, "Actually, I'll admit there are places where one might consider releasing stuff under a BSD-like license; but it should be the author's choice. Not theirs."
I personally don't believe that BSD is as conducive to giving-back as the GPL, but there are places that it may worth using.
What I would object to is producing work and letting people use it for free under certain conditions, then having someone else able to exploit this without giving back *because the license was changed*.
If I wanted a BSD license, I'd have used that in the first place.
But you are in essence correct. Freedom is too valuable to give to everyone. We need to lock it away so only we can have it.
Complete and utter strawman bull #2. You should get this one together with #1 and they could start a family.
Where did I say this had *anything* to do with "freedom"? Where did I say (or imply) that it should be "locked away"? This doesn't even bear any relation to what I was saying now; it's blatant misrepresentation.
For what it's worth, I didn't promote the GPL as providing more "freedom". BSD-style licenses obviously provide far more freedom for the original code; what they don't do is extend any significant freedom for derivative works. GPL restricts certain freedoms on the original code in exchange for the preservation of freedoms on derivative works.
If I choose to write something, and release it under a particular license, no-one is forcing anyone else to use it. They can write their own and release it under a different license.
If you think I should be denied the freedom to place restrictions on what's done with my code, then you have to extend the same lack of restrictions to derivative works, so that anyone (including me) can do what the heck we like with them. The problem with BSD is that it doesn't stop other people's (default) right to impose restrictions on derivative code.
If everyone else has the right to carry a sword, I certainly expect the right to carry one too. So, either I have the right to GPL my code without anyone complaining, or if I have to release my code without restrictions, no-one else should be allowed to restrict their derivative works either.
Anyhow, I'm not against proprietery software, or BSD. I do expect the right to choose if everyone else does.
None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner.
Ever since he started skewing the Jargon File towards his own political beliefs (over-extending the hacker ethic to cover his 'libertarian' views, which if it was ever entirely true- dubious- certainly *doesn't* represent every hacker nowadays), I got the impression that ESR wants to give the *impression* that every hacker and supporter of free software is behind him and his views, as opposed to actually getting them onside. Or- and there may be some truth in this- perhaps he actually believes that he's more representative than he actually is.
I'm not going to deny his contributions (both in code and support) to the open source movement, but that's more than offset IMHO by his egotism and partisan nature.
Doesn't the fact that being allowed to choose which version one applies to the software precludes the possibility of others to do the same to your version, i.e. that the disjunction of license versions is not transitive and one in effect loses the free choice of the version after one "generation"?
I don't know about this personally; I'm in the process of developing something, which *if* it doesn't descend into a tangled mess of code, will probably be GPLed.
And one thing I'm *not* doing for sure is allowing it to be distributed under that "either version X or (at your option) any later version."
Apart from leading to the problems you describe, it assumes that you trust that Stallman or the FSF won't do anything you seriously disagree with in future versions of the license. ANY future version.... and although I don't seriously think Stallman will "sell out", he may do something weird based on some radical new opinion. Or what if the FSF falls out of Stallman's hands?
What if ESR (or someone similar) got a hold of the FSF, and in line with their (IMHO deluded) libertarian beliefs that companies will ultimately not just screw everyone over and exploit their code given the chance, release a version of the GPL that is closer in spirit to the BSD-license?
(Actually, I'll admit there are places where one might consider releasing stuff under a BSD-like license; but it should be the author's choice. Not theirs.)
I've also considered the possibility of "any future version, provided you have MY permission". The problem of transitivity still remains with that one, however. What if someone adds to the code; does the modified version require *their* permission to distribute under a later version of the license? Can they restrict it to a chosen version?
One possible solution is to release it under (e.g.) version 2 as an "official" release. Anyone who wants to add to it can distribute the modified version under GPL v2; however, if you want the code incorporated into the "official" release, you have to give permission for me (the "primary" author, in theory, though what happens if the program is massively expanded?) to permit or deny distribution of your changes under any version of the GPL.
Whether that's something I'd agree to if I was the other guy is debatable, so I'm not convinved it's a great idea.
RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom.
I realise the view is RMS's, and not necessarily yours. However, in a country where everything is permitted, except where it is explicitly prohibited, doesn't every law "restrict freedom" in some manner?
Aye. I prefer runestones, although the rune porn is less juicy than MPEG-4.
Runestones are just the physical format; there's nothing stopping you from storing binary-encoded MPEG porn on them.
I have the contents of the 'College Girls Go Wild #29' DVD stored on the remains of half a mountain for example. Unfortunately, the transfer rate from rune to computer is too slow to show it at full speed. In fact, three of the guys carrying the porn from the store room to my computer died of exhaustion, as 137 runes per second was just too much for them.
Agree beforehand? How about: "Sorry, no agreement. If you want to release ideas unto the world, and expect to enforce people to pay for your crap, then your're out of luck bub".
Nice strawman there; I didn't "expect to enforce people to pay for crap", I expect the enforcement if and ONLY IF they wish to exploit another person's original work (in the same way that I don't expect anyone to *have* to buy physical goods or services if they don't want to).
Okay then; how about this- you want to milk a cow, grow corn, etc. etc. Some other guy comes along and takes your corn and milk, saying...
"Sorry, no agreement. If you want to milk a cow or grow corn on some land you claim is yours, and expect to enforce people to pay for your crap, then you're out of luck".
He didn't create the land, he didn't make the seeds, he just planted them in the ground, so they're not really his....
So, to some extent, all laws are arbitrary and unfair; they're there for a reason- if they weren't, or didn't respect individual's work, no-one would be motivated to do anything (a la communism).
Where is the arguement in forcing me to do anything, especially forcing me to protect something as ephemeral as ideas or expression.
Or as ephemeral as milk and grain? The results of physical work are usually pretty ephemeral too; why should they be protected?
Because the implications of not protecting them are pretty undesirable.
Once you start apply force you better damn well justify it or you might be on the receiving end of force back.
Although I'd bet those adhering to that argument wouldn't be so happy if someone stole the grain and milk they'd worked hard to produce, right?
And they'd *certainly* want the forces of law and order to support their right to that land which was theirs, wouldn't they?
Did they create the land? No? Then why should they have any right to be allowed to defend it by force, let alone expect others to back this up?
So.... yeah, you're damn right I'll justify it. Someone's *work* went into that, and to say it's okay to exploit that work for free simply because it's easily copied is bullshit. It's easy to copy, it's not easy to PRODUCE.
If it's easy to produce, produce your own. If it's not, then stop ripping off the guy who *did* produce it. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that less original ideas should enjoy the same level of protection; that's a detail to be worked out by the people and government).
All laws are arbitrary to some extent, and they're not always fair. I'm not interested in justifying Disney-like indefinite extensions to copyright law, but the crux of the matter is that to imply that intellectual work is somehow less deserving of protection of other work smacks of double standards.
THAT's your justification.
Physical and intellectual works are different in nature, so the laws to protect them will be somewhat different. Those laws may be unfair or badly written; that's a problem with particular laws, *not* with the general principle that everyone has (to *some* extent) a right not to have their work ripped off or physically stolen.
So if a product is "shit", that's bad. But if a product is "the shit", that's good. People whine about 1984-speak all the time but then go ahead and fuck with the language anyway because it's trendy to do so. Losers.
Did you actually 'get' that novel?
It would be "Nineteen Eighty-Four"-style language if (a) the language were being deliberately manipulated, altered and restricted by some authority to manipulate people into thinking their way, and (b) "shit" meant different things in different contexts (e.g. "Shit" meant good when referring to a Sony product, but bad when referring to Panasonic).
"Shit" and "the shit" may be irritating uses of language to some, but they have distinct (to the people using them) and consistent meanings; hence they don't reflect the fascistic control of language (and hence culture) that appeared in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Damn, I had just bought one the these a year ago (classic NES version). They upgrade these things yearly it seems.
Putting some retro-decals on a standard GameBoy SP doesn't really count as an upgrade. This is the first "real" upgrade since the SP came out, and is hardly of the same magnitude as the upgrades the SP had over the plain Advance; let alone the original Advance against previous GameBoys.
9) China doesn't give a monkeys, sees a way to extend its influence and power, and sell stuff (a la Zimbabwe; didn't know about that? Google it) and gives Vanuatu what it wants.
10) West loses; profit irrelevant.
Re:"Indie Chart" my ass; #56 in the proper charts.
on
The Chumbawamba Factor
·
· Score: 1
Oh God, yeah. I remember.... Radio 1 before about 1993 seemed aimed at 30-40somethings instead of the teens/early-twenties it was originally aimed at, and full of MOR Radio 2-type DJs.
I mean, "I'd Rather Jack" (arf) was a crap song, but you could see where it was coming from.
I'd dispute that MTV2 is "alternative" or "indie". I've seen it, and as far as I'm concerned it represents the corporate assimilation and homogenisation of the above, turning "indie" or "alternative" into stunningly ironic terms these days.
(Though I found Slipknot to be so over-the-top silly scary that only a thirteen-year-old could take them seriously that I kind of liked them for that).
But back to the point. Just because an artist was "influential" or popular as part of a subculture, doesn't mean they're popular in the mainstream. I hear about all these bands that were supposedly influential, and all their famous singles and think "Hang on, I don't remember hearing that when I was a kid". And you look it up, and realise that the reason you don't remember it was because it wasn't a chart hit at the time(!) From that point-of-view, Chumbawumba are still an (almost) one-hit-wonder.
No, no, no. Admittedly, I should have phrased it better; bearing that in mind, I'll assume you're not setting up a strawman argument here.
Let me clarify; *if* Person B wishes to use or exploit Person A's original work to any extent (beyond 'fair use' et al) they should be expected to agree the terms of compensation (if any; that's up to A) beforehand.
If they can't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement (or never made any promises in the first place), then B owes A nothing, but of course, has no right to the fruits of A's labour either.
Gifts are a different kettle of fish; and that includes your 'courting' example. The implication is that nothing is owed in exchange for a gift.
in that creating a list, of phone numbers, is not copyrightable even if effort is put into compiling it.
I thought we were discussing moral rights now; not legal systems. Legal systems are the way things are, not the way they *should* be.
However, if you reread the message, you'll see I refer to "original" creations. Of course, originality is all relative, and I don't think it's possible to clearly draw a moral line between derivative and non-derivative works; the law just has to place it somewhere.
Should being able to reap the rewards include sending government storm troopers into my house because I copied some precious information (that you may happen to have been granted a copyright monopoly on by said storm troopers' political masters)?
No, and I don't believe I came anywhere near endorsing such behaviour.
Just because I didn't agree 100% with some of the Slashdot concensus, please don't associate me with some uber-fascistic extension of the RIAA or MPAA's favoured government-payola behaviour.
Matter of fact, I have mixed feelings on the story, I just didn't adhere to the "Oh my God! How dare they sue Google! Google are so obviously doing them a favour, yadda yadda...." concensus.
I hate to reply twice, but you need to remember that copyright is not handed down by god as a way to ensure profits for artists.
I said the author had the right to be "unhappy". And yes, you're absolutely right; copyright can and *should* change to suit the needs of the times. Plus, no-one has the right to eternal copyright, particularly as they probably copied someone else to some extent. But I do think that morally people have the right to *some* protection of their own work, regardless of whether it's physical or intellectual.
I mean, if you disregard that artificial distinction, you could apply that "not handed down by god" thing to the protection of the results of *any* work.
an unjust law carries no moral force
That's very much a matter of opinion. Given that some people consider their own personal religious beliefs as synonymous with moral and just (and excluding that which isn't in that set of beliefs), particularly in the US, I'd be very wary of anyone using that as an excuse to break the law.
"Indie Chart" my ass; #56 in the proper charts...
on
The Chumbawamba Factor
·
· Score: 1
Seriously though, whilst they may be in the one-hit-wonder category in the USA, in the UK they had a string of indie-chart (roughly synonymous with the US "Alternative Chart") hits in the early 90's
Yeah, but none of them were hits in the main UK singles chart; in fact, before Tubthumping, their best position was #56.
And let's bear in mind that unlike the US, the main UK singles chart doesn't include an airplay factor, so it's not as biased against indie/dance/whatever stuff that's popular, but isn't suitable for Homogenous Clear Channel FM.
In other words, their early-90s "hits" in the UK weren't, and I never heard any of them.
throughout which I remained a member of the Young Conservatives, so obviously their political aims were significantly less effective than their indie-chart abilities
William Haig? Is that you?!
If it is, I'd say *your* political aims were also significantly less effective than your indie-chart abilities. Not that I'm saying you ever had any indie-chart abilities....:)
If it's reference works you're concerned about, then that's a moot point anyway. Really now! Such brevity of information is always going to fall under fair use.
Then I suggest a good way for you to make some money. Copy the whole of the Encyclopedia Britannica's content, and give it out freely online.
As (according to you) such "brevity of information is always going to fall under fair use", you obviously won't get sued. Go for it!
If someone has no use for the larger body of work as a whole, one uses the fucking library [..]
How is Google any different, other than being obscenely more efficient and more accessible
Because they don't have a paid-for copy of the book, and haven't agreed terms to pay compensation to the people who actually put the effort into compiling that work?
especially for people with disabilities?
This is a "won't somebody think of the children" argument. Yes, it's fair that those with disabilities should have access to the information; but you can't use that argument to give everyone else free access to information which they haven't paid for, either directly or indirectly.
I believe that the idea is that the snippet of information is merely a taster of the book
The problem happens with reference works and books in that vein, when the "snippets" are large enough to encompass everything you're looking for. See my other comments (here and here for more details).
The libraries do not have the original book they merely, except in very rare cases, have a copy.
My apologies. I should have said "first-generation , paid for, legitimate, physical copy of the book". It could have been phrased more accurately, but I thought it was clear enough to understand what I meant; evidently not.
By having the book published, and therefore automatically stored in all of Britain's six libraries, the author is making a concious decision to have their work and information shared amongst the population.
Which isn't the same as gaining some form of "free" access; even the library model requires a paid-for copy (in Britain, the author gets paid a small fee every time a book is loaned).
In this context the medium on which the information is carried should be treated as abstract and irrelevant to the books purpose, which is to communicate information.
In this context the medium on which the information is carried should be treated as abstract and irrelevant to the books purpose, which is to communicate information.
But book-selling is a business in which many authors are wishing to make money (in some cases, this is the overriding motive). Changing the method of communication of that information changes the business model, and *this may not necessarily be to the benefit of the author/publisher*. I feel they have the right to determine whether to take that risk.
Of course, if they decide not to take it, and they lose out, that's not my problem.
Yet if properly managed, as Apple's iTunes has shown, online libraries of media can be big business.
Yes, but is Google's aim to make books searchable online, or to put the whole books online? They're two different things, even though both require a scan of the original book.
It is my fear that this litigation will cause all future efforts on this type of project to be hindered to the point that they cannot be completely realised. This indeed would be a great shame
I agree with you up to a point; however, I think we have to be clear what the aim of this archive is; to be a search engine, or to be an online book depository. The former has a tendency to blur into the latter as features and context (around the search term) are added.
By this standard, looking in a book at a bookstore is a violation of copyright, because you're reading something to which you have no rights, and the bookstore is also in violation because they do not have permission from the publishers to allow you to use the books in that manner.
I'd say permission had implicitly, but quite clearly been given, by the book publisher's continued support (over hundreds of years!) of that model of book selling.
They're not publishing it in its entirety, they're not making a profit off it's reproduction (the profit they make is incidental to the reproduction)
I'm not clear as to which books they have permission on and *who* they got permission from (e.g. if they got permission from the publishers, but it turns out the publishers didn't have the right to grant that permission); but it seems that they're providing links to booksellers, and so on. Do they get a cut of those profits?
And even if the ads weren't directly related to the book, or even (extreme example) if there weren't any ads directly on the book's page, they're still attracting people to Google using this content.
When it comes to making money, the onus is really on Google to prove "incidental", because I'm not convinced it's really that "incidental".
Now, ten years ago, you could have made goodly chunks of a book available on the web, cited the author, and no one would have cared regarding copyright (well, not much anyway). Replication for non-profit reasons, where the author was given credit, was allowed.
Or tolerated, more like, because it wasn't a serious threat to their business, and wouldn't have been worth the hassle of pursuing anyway. I mean, twelve years ago, most people hadn't even *heard* of the Internet...
Legally, in terms of caching, the way Google's always done it is: "If you don't say we can't cache it, we will. If later, you decide you don't like that, we'll take it out." I think it's perfectly reasonable for the semi-public domain of the internet
"The Internet" isn't "semi public-domain"; it just so happens that the culture and the nature of the network encourage this sort of use of information. More importantly, these books weren't part of the Internet to begin with; would it be acceptable for me to photocopy books, distribute them, and wait for the publishers to say "Please don't do that", to which I'd say, "Okay I won't"....?
They're providing a service for the copyright holders, that they should be on their knees thanking them for.
In some cases perhaps; read here for why this might not always be the case. In such cases, I think the authors should have the right to decide whether the risk of loss (espec. in the case of reference works) outweighs the benefit of publicity. You may be right about the technophobia of the Author's Guild, but I still don't think the searchability's as 100% beneficial as some would like to believe.
*Snippets* of information are considered fair use in free societies!
Where do you draw the line between a snippet and a large chunk?
Is a pageful a "snippet"? Is being able to then look at the page before *that* a "snippet"?
More importantly, what if the book is made up of "snippets" (e.g. reference works)? Does that legitimise what is, in effect, putting the whole work online for free (since the way it is used in real life can be effectively replicated by searching for "snippets")?
Search engines still do indeed have to make full copies of the web pages they index. And they don't, obviously, have to purchase a copy of websites before indexing them
The question is what they do with that copy and how it can be used. There are probably many cases where legally and morally, Google should not be allowing users to see the cache that was created (supposedly) for *searching*. For example, an ad-funded website. This isn't as extreme as the book example, since in most websites, the information is freely available, and accessing it via Google isn't always that much more convenient; but it's still a valid argument. The book example simply makes it stronger because there's a clear benefit (for the consumer) to accessing the free copy via Google.
Well, certainly, but this service provided by Google can only help the authors.
Sorry, but it's blanket statements like this that annoy me. No doubt in many cases (e.g. fiction), it will help the authors, since who the heck wants to read the whole latest Stephen King via Google? (And if you want to pirate it, you can buy the book, there are probably easier ways of going about it). But in other cases (e.g. reference works), I believe that there's enough doubt that it will always be beneficial that you can't use that argument.
The only question, IMO, is whether or not Google should be allowed to have complete digital copies of the books in their database.
The only question IMHO is whether Google should allow access to these complete copies in such a manner that it may be used as a replacement to the original books. As I said, this depends on the nature of a "snippet" and the nature of the original book as well.
Utilitarian arguements are not moral arguements, I'd need to see a moral arguement that justifies using force which limits the free flow of information.
The *moral* argument is that if someone puts effort into creating something original which would (in all probability) not otherwise have been created, then they should be able to reap the rewards (if there are any; there is no onus to subsidise) in the same way that people who "created" physical items should.
By the way, all "moral" arguments are "utilitarian" if you take them down low enough; morals exist because (in theory) they ultimately benefit everyone. So, you could argue that the above is 'utilitarian' not moral; but then, you could argue that about anything if you took it far enough.
Really? Had I bought a book(and I have), I would not consider someone forbidding me to copy my personal property to be acceptable by default.
Huh?! Have you ever heard of copyright law?
I think you'll find that- with certain *limited* exemptions for personal use in some countries- it does exactly this. If I create an original work (books included) and you buy a "personal copy", by default (in most countries) you don't have permission to copy it.
I don't buy movies or music from *AA companies any more, to protest their tactics. But I have bought literally 10,000s of books in my life and will probably buy a lot more.
How can I make sure never to buy a book from an Authors Guild writer or company?
Only buy typewritten, photocopied and staple-bound books from your local hippie-collective bookshop.
And then copy them yourselves and don't worry about the bookshop going out of business, because information wants to be free and they'd be uber-capitalist hypocrites if they or their authors were to sue you for wanting compensation for copying their material.
Listen; as I said elsewhere, Google are a commercial company (albeit one who usually behave in a better manner than the stereotype), the Author's Guild members have both the moral right to say (within reason) what is done with their work and to receive compensation for it. Especially w.r.t. reference works, searchability *might* damage the sales of books; it might encourage sales in other cases, but let's not consider this as a black and white issue. If nothing else, the authors themselves should have the right to that decision.
Personally, had I written a book, I would not consider someone copying it without permission and making it searchabe to be acceptable by default.
It might "benefit" people in general, but if it doesn't benefit the author too, I think they have a right to be unhappy about this.
You, of course, have the right to boycott their books, but this seems like a kneejerk "information wants to be free and anyone who stops this is bad" reaction without considering the wider issues.
Upon utilising the search engine and associated search algorithms we can look and search within every title and work for relevant information, and disregard the irrelevancies, with no more hassle than a couple of clicks on a browser.
And you don't have to pay the author for that snippet of information!
Libraries also allows users to read the entire text of a book
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
To prevent access to a searchable library to the entire populous of the world is to hide information and create a teired society, those who have access to the information and those that do not. This is backward and unjust.
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Whatever your views on the Google corporation it is unjust to take legal action against such a noble scheme
Google's aim is to make money; now, I'm not about to bash that (particularly not if they do it in an enlightened manner), but let's bear this in mind before we start using words like "noble". It's not a zero-sum game, and if everyone wins; fine. But please take off the rose-tinted spectacles when discussing Google, even before you've considered the holes in your argument above.
You might be able to find burger king on the web with it, but not hamburger recipies, because the people that run amateur recipe websites would not think to add a code to allow their page to be indexed.
Only because that's not the way things are done now. If it were the norm to require searchability flags, most people would have them turned on by default, or the software they use would do that.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, companies would ultimately screw everyone over by exploiting their code. Just look at FreeBSD for example.
I don't see Microsoft rushing to contribute back to the TCP/IP stack they used under the BSD license. I'm not convinced that IBM would be so keen to contribute work that could be used to build proprietary products by their competitors.
And FreeBSD isn't Linux in terms of success.
However, in spite of your efforts to portray it otherwise, this wasn't an anti-BSD rant....
I'm sure there's an example out there of the utter anguish and despair that would happen if the GPL were more free.
Strawman hysterics #1. I never said there would be utter anguish and despair. In fact I said, "Actually, I'll admit there are places where one might consider releasing stuff under a BSD-like license; but it should be the author's choice. Not theirs."
I personally don't believe that BSD is as conducive to giving-back as the GPL, but there are places that it may worth using.
What I would object to is producing work and letting people use it for free under certain conditions, then having someone else able to exploit this without giving back *because the license was changed*.
If I wanted a BSD license, I'd have used that in the first place.
But you are in essence correct. Freedom is too valuable to give to everyone. We need to lock it away so only we can have it.
Complete and utter strawman bull #2. You should get this one together with #1 and they could start a family.
Where did I say this had *anything* to do with "freedom"? Where did I say (or imply) that it should be "locked away"? This doesn't even bear any relation to what I was saying now; it's blatant misrepresentation.
For what it's worth, I didn't promote the GPL as providing more "freedom". BSD-style licenses obviously provide far more freedom for the original code; what they don't do is extend any significant freedom for derivative works. GPL restricts certain freedoms on the original code in exchange for the preservation of freedoms on derivative works.
If I choose to write something, and release it under a particular license, no-one is forcing anyone else to use it. They can write their own and release it under a different license.
If you think I should be denied the freedom to place restrictions on what's done with my code, then you have to extend the same lack of restrictions to derivative works, so that anyone (including me) can do what the heck we like with them. The problem with BSD is that it doesn't stop other people's (default) right to impose restrictions on derivative code.
If everyone else has the right to carry a sword, I certainly expect the right to carry one too. So, either I have the right to GPL my code without anyone complaining, or if I have to release my code without restrictions, no-one else should be allowed to restrict their derivative works either.
Anyhow, I'm not against proprietery software, or BSD. I do expect the right to choose if everyone else does.
None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner.
Ever since he started skewing the Jargon File towards his own political beliefs (over-extending the hacker ethic to cover his 'libertarian' views, which if it was ever entirely true- dubious- certainly *doesn't* represent every hacker nowadays), I got the impression that ESR wants to give the *impression* that every hacker and supporter of free software is behind him and his views, as opposed to actually getting them onside. Or- and there may be some truth in this- perhaps he actually believes that he's more representative than he actually is.
I'm not going to deny his contributions (both in code and support) to the open source movement, but that's more than offset IMHO by his egotism and partisan nature.
GPL is not needed, GUNS are enough -and required- to protect the interest of the shareholders^Wprogrammers.
Eric? Is that you?! Please log in before you post, thanks.
Doesn't the fact that being allowed to choose which version one applies to the software precludes the possibility of others to do the same to your version, i.e. that the disjunction of license versions is not transitive and one in effect loses the free choice of the version after one "generation"?
I don't know about this personally; I'm in the process of developing something, which *if* it doesn't descend into a tangled mess of code, will probably be GPLed.
And one thing I'm *not* doing for sure is allowing it to be distributed under that "either version X or (at your option) any later version."
Apart from leading to the problems you describe, it assumes that you trust that Stallman or the FSF won't do anything you seriously disagree with in future versions of the license. ANY future version.... and although I don't seriously think Stallman will "sell out", he may do something weird based on some radical new opinion. Or what if the FSF falls out of Stallman's hands?
What if ESR (or someone similar) got a hold of the FSF, and in line with their (IMHO deluded) libertarian beliefs that companies will ultimately not just screw everyone over and exploit their code given the chance, release a version of the GPL that is closer in spirit to the BSD-license?
(Actually, I'll admit there are places where one might consider releasing stuff under a BSD-like license; but it should be the author's choice. Not theirs.)
I've also considered the possibility of "any future version, provided you have MY permission". The problem of transitivity still remains with that one, however. What if someone adds to the code; does the modified version require *their* permission to distribute under a later version of the license? Can they restrict it to a chosen version?
One possible solution is to release it under (e.g.) version 2 as an "official" release. Anyone who wants to add to it can distribute the modified version under GPL v2; however, if you want the code incorporated into the "official" release, you have to give permission for me (the "primary" author, in theory, though what happens if the program is massively expanded?) to permit or deny distribution of your changes under any version of the GPL.
Whether that's something I'd agree to if I was the other guy is debatable, so I'm not convinved it's a great idea.
RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom.
I realise the view is RMS's, and not necessarily yours. However, in a country where everything is permitted, except where it is explicitly prohibited, doesn't every law "restrict freedom" in some manner?
Aye. I prefer runestones, although the rune porn is less juicy than MPEG-4.
Runestones are just the physical format; there's nothing stopping you from storing binary-encoded MPEG porn on them.
I have the contents of the 'College Girls Go Wild #29' DVD stored on the remains of half a mountain for example. Unfortunately, the transfer rate from rune to computer is too slow to show it at full speed. In fact, three of the guys carrying the porn from the store room to my computer died of exhaustion, as 137 runes per second was just too much for them.
A Hello Kitty the spits up a real simulated hairball when there's a sale at Penney's?
Hello Kitty doesn't have a mouth, so I don't know where the hairballs will come out...
Agree beforehand? How about: "Sorry, no agreement. If you want to release ideas unto the world, and expect to enforce people to pay for your crap, then your're out of luck bub".
Nice strawman there; I didn't "expect to enforce people to pay for crap", I expect the enforcement if and ONLY IF they wish to exploit another person's original work (in the same way that I don't expect anyone to *have* to buy physical goods or services if they don't want to).
Okay then; how about this- you want to milk a cow, grow corn, etc. etc. Some other guy comes along and takes your corn and milk, saying...
"Sorry, no agreement. If you want to milk a cow or grow corn on some land you claim is yours, and expect to enforce people to pay for your crap, then you're out of luck".
He didn't create the land, he didn't make the seeds, he just planted them in the ground, so they're not really his....
So, to some extent, all laws are arbitrary and unfair; they're there for a reason- if they weren't, or didn't respect individual's work, no-one would be motivated to do anything (a la communism).
Where is the arguement in forcing me to do anything, especially forcing me to protect something as ephemeral as ideas or expression.
Or as ephemeral as milk and grain? The results of physical work are usually pretty ephemeral too; why should they be protected?
Because the implications of not protecting them are pretty undesirable.
Once you start apply force you better damn well justify it or you might be on the receiving end of force back.
Although I'd bet those adhering to that argument wouldn't be so happy if someone stole the grain and milk they'd worked hard to produce, right?
And they'd *certainly* want the forces of law and order to support their right to that land which was theirs, wouldn't they?
Did they create the land? No? Then why should they have any right to be allowed to defend it by force, let alone expect others to back this up?
So.... yeah, you're damn right I'll justify it. Someone's *work* went into that, and to say it's okay to exploit that work for free simply because it's easily copied is bullshit. It's easy to copy, it's not easy to PRODUCE.
If it's easy to produce, produce your own. If it's not, then stop ripping off the guy who *did* produce it. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that less original ideas should enjoy the same level of protection; that's a detail to be worked out by the people and government).
All laws are arbitrary to some extent, and they're not always fair. I'm not interested in justifying Disney-like indefinite extensions to copyright law, but the crux of the matter is that to imply that intellectual work is somehow less deserving of protection of other work smacks of double standards.
THAT's your justification.
Physical and intellectual works are different in nature, so the laws to protect them will be somewhat different. Those laws may be unfair or badly written; that's a problem with particular laws, *not* with the general principle that everyone has (to *some* extent) a right not to have their work ripped off or physically stolen.
So if a product is "shit", that's bad. But if a product is "the shit", that's good. People whine about 1984-speak all the time but then go ahead and fuck with the language anyway because it's trendy to do so. Losers.
Did you actually 'get' that novel?
It would be "Nineteen Eighty-Four"-style language if (a) the language were being deliberately manipulated, altered and restricted by some authority to manipulate people into thinking their way, and (b) "shit" meant different things in different contexts (e.g. "Shit" meant good when referring to a Sony product, but bad when referring to Panasonic).
"Shit" and "the shit" may be irritating uses of language to some, but they have distinct (to the people using them) and consistent meanings; hence they don't reflect the fascistic control of language (and hence culture) that appeared in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Damn, I had just bought one the these a year ago (classic NES version). They upgrade these things yearly it seems.
Putting some retro-decals on a standard GameBoy SP doesn't really count as an upgrade. This is the first "real" upgrade since the SP came out, and is hardly of the same magnitude as the upgrades the SP had over the plain Advance; let alone the original Advance against previous GameBoys.
9) China doesn't give a monkeys, sees a way to extend its influence and power, and sell stuff (a la Zimbabwe; didn't know about that? Google it) and gives Vanuatu what it wants.
10) West loses; profit irrelevant.
Oh God, yeah. I remember.... Radio 1 before about 1993 seemed aimed at 30-40somethings instead of the teens/early-twenties it was originally aimed at, and full of MOR Radio 2-type DJs.
:-)
I mean, "I'd Rather Jack" (arf) was a crap song, but you could see where it was coming from.
I'd dispute that MTV2 is "alternative" or "indie". I've seen it, and as far as I'm concerned it represents the corporate assimilation and homogenisation of the above, turning "indie" or "alternative" into stunningly ironic terms these days.
(Though I found Slipknot to be so over-the-top silly scary that only a thirteen-year-old could take them seriously that I kind of liked them for that).
But back to the point. Just because an artist was "influential" or popular as part of a subculture, doesn't mean they're popular in the mainstream. I hear about all these bands that were supposedly influential, and all their famous singles and think "Hang on, I don't remember hearing that when I was a kid". And you look it up, and realise that the reason you don't remember it was because it wasn't a chart hit at the time(!) From that point-of-view, Chumbawumba are still an (almost) one-hit-wonder.
BTW, forgot to get the Tory boy jibe in
Efforts = right to rewards?
No, no, no. Admittedly, I should have phrased it better; bearing that in mind, I'll assume you're not setting up a strawman argument here.
Let me clarify; *if* Person B wishes to use or exploit Person A's original work to any extent (beyond 'fair use' et al) they should be expected to agree the terms of compensation (if any; that's up to A) beforehand.
If they can't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement (or never made any promises in the first place), then B owes A nothing, but of course, has no right to the fruits of A's labour either.
Gifts are a different kettle of fish; and that includes your 'courting' example. The implication is that nothing is owed in exchange for a gift.
in that creating a list, of phone numbers, is not copyrightable even if effort is put into compiling it.
I thought we were discussing moral rights now; not legal systems. Legal systems are the way things are, not the way they *should* be.
However, if you reread the message, you'll see I refer to "original" creations. Of course, originality is all relative, and I don't think it's possible to clearly draw a moral line between derivative and non-derivative works; the law just has to place it somewhere.
Should being able to reap the rewards include sending government storm troopers into my house because I copied some precious information (that you may happen to have been granted a copyright monopoly on by said storm troopers' political masters)?
No, and I don't believe I came anywhere near endorsing such behaviour.
Just because I didn't agree 100% with some of the Slashdot concensus, please don't associate me with some uber-fascistic extension of the RIAA or MPAA's favoured government-payola behaviour.
Matter of fact, I have mixed feelings on the story, I just didn't adhere to the "Oh my God! How dare they sue Google! Google are so obviously doing them a favour, yadda yadda...." concensus.
I hate to reply twice, but you need to remember that copyright is not handed down by god as a way to ensure profits for artists.
I said the author had the right to be "unhappy". And yes, you're absolutely right; copyright can and *should* change to suit the needs of the times. Plus, no-one has the right to eternal copyright, particularly as they probably copied someone else to some extent. But I do think that morally people have the right to *some* protection of their own work, regardless of whether it's physical or intellectual.
I mean, if you disregard that artificial distinction, you could apply that "not handed down by god" thing to the protection of the results of *any* work.
an unjust law carries no moral force
That's very much a matter of opinion. Given that some people consider their own personal religious beliefs as synonymous with moral and just (and excluding that which isn't in that set of beliefs), particularly in the US, I'd be very wary of anyone using that as an excuse to break the law.
Seriously though, whilst they may be in the one-hit-wonder category in the USA, in the UK they had a string of indie-chart (roughly synonymous with the US "Alternative Chart") hits in the early 90's
:)
Yeah, but none of them were hits in the main UK singles chart; in fact, before Tubthumping, their best position was #56.
And let's bear in mind that unlike the US, the main UK singles chart doesn't include an airplay factor, so it's not as biased against indie/dance/whatever stuff that's popular, but isn't suitable for Homogenous Clear Channel FM.
In other words, their early-90s "hits" in the UK weren't, and I never heard any of them.
throughout which I remained a member of the Young Conservatives, so obviously their political aims were significantly less effective than their indie-chart abilities
William Haig? Is that you?!
If it is, I'd say *your* political aims were also significantly less effective than your indie-chart abilities. Not that I'm saying you ever had any indie-chart abilities....
If it's reference works you're concerned about, then that's a moot point anyway. Really now! Such brevity of information is always going to fall under fair use.
Then I suggest a good way for you to make some money. Copy the whole of the Encyclopedia Britannica's content, and give it out freely online.
As (according to you) such "brevity of information is always going to fall under fair use", you obviously won't get sued. Go for it!
If someone has no use for the larger body of work as a whole, one uses the fucking library [..] How is Google any different, other than being obscenely more efficient and more accessible
Because they don't have a paid-for copy of the book, and haven't agreed terms to pay compensation to the people who actually put the effort into compiling that work?
especially for people with disabilities?
This is a "won't somebody think of the children" argument. Yes, it's fair that those with disabilities should have access to the information; but you can't use that argument to give everyone else free access to information which they haven't paid for, either directly or indirectly.
I believe that the idea is that the snippet of information is merely a taster of the book
The problem happens with reference works and books in that vein, when the "snippets" are large enough to encompass everything you're looking for. See my other comments (here and here for more details).
The libraries do not have the original book they merely, except in very rare cases, have a copy.
My apologies. I should have said "first-generation , paid for, legitimate, physical copy of the book". It could have been phrased more accurately, but I thought it was clear enough to understand what I meant; evidently not.
By having the book published, and therefore automatically stored in all of Britain's six libraries, the author is making a concious decision to have their work and information shared amongst the population.
Which isn't the same as gaining some form of "free" access; even the library model requires a paid-for copy (in Britain, the author gets paid a small fee every time a book is loaned).
In this context the medium on which the information is carried should be treated as abstract and irrelevant to the books purpose, which is to communicate information.
In this context the medium on which the information is carried should be treated as abstract and irrelevant to the books purpose, which is to communicate information.
But book-selling is a business in which many authors are wishing to make money (in some cases, this is the overriding motive). Changing the method of communication of that information changes the business model, and *this may not necessarily be to the benefit of the author/publisher*. I feel they have the right to determine whether to take that risk.
Of course, if they decide not to take it, and they lose out, that's not my problem.
Yet if properly managed, as Apple's iTunes has shown, online libraries of media can be big business.
Yes, but is Google's aim to make books searchable online, or to put the whole books online? They're two different things, even though both require a scan of the original book.
It is my fear that this litigation will cause all future efforts on this type of project to be hindered to the point that they cannot be completely realised. This indeed would be a great shame
I agree with you up to a point; however, I think we have to be clear what the aim of this archive is; to be a search engine, or to be an online book depository. The former has a tendency to blur into the latter as features and context (around the search term) are added.
By this standard, looking in a book at a bookstore is a violation of copyright, because you're reading something to which you have no rights, and the bookstore is also in violation because they do not have permission from the publishers to allow you to use the books in that manner.
I'd say permission had implicitly, but quite clearly been given, by the book publisher's continued support (over hundreds of years!) of that model of book selling.
They're not publishing it in its entirety, they're not making a profit off it's reproduction (the profit they make is incidental to the reproduction)
I'm not clear as to which books they have permission on and *who* they got permission from (e.g. if they got permission from the publishers, but it turns out the publishers didn't have the right to grant that permission); but it seems that they're providing links to booksellers, and so on. Do they get a cut of those profits?
And even if the ads weren't directly related to the book, or even (extreme example) if there weren't any ads directly on the book's page, they're still attracting people to Google using this content.
When it comes to making money, the onus is really on Google to prove "incidental", because I'm not convinced it's really that "incidental".
Now, ten years ago, you could have made goodly chunks of a book available on the web, cited the author, and no one would have cared regarding copyright (well, not much anyway). Replication for non-profit reasons, where the author was given credit, was allowed.
Or tolerated, more like, because it wasn't a serious threat to their business, and wouldn't have been worth the hassle of pursuing anyway. I mean, twelve years ago, most people hadn't even *heard* of the Internet...
Legally, in terms of caching, the way Google's always done it is: "If you don't say we can't cache it, we will. If later, you decide you don't like that, we'll take it out." I think it's perfectly reasonable for the semi-public domain of the internet
"The Internet" isn't "semi public-domain"; it just so happens that the culture and the nature of the network encourage this sort of use of information. More importantly, these books weren't part of the Internet to begin with; would it be acceptable for me to photocopy books, distribute them, and wait for the publishers to say "Please don't do that", to which I'd say, "Okay I won't"....?
They're providing a service for the copyright holders, that they should be on their knees thanking them for.
In some cases perhaps; read here for why this might not always be the case. In such cases, I think the authors should have the right to decide whether the risk of loss (espec. in the case of reference works) outweighs the benefit of publicity. You may be right about the technophobia of the Author's Guild, but I still don't think the searchability's as 100% beneficial as some would like to believe.
*Snippets* of information are considered fair use in free societies!
Where do you draw the line between a snippet and a large chunk?
Is a pageful a "snippet"? Is being able to then look at the page before *that* a "snippet"?
More importantly, what if the book is made up of "snippets" (e.g. reference works)? Does that legitimise what is, in effect, putting the whole work online for free (since the way it is used in real life can be effectively replicated by searching for "snippets")?
Search engines still do indeed have to make full copies of the web pages they index. And they don't, obviously, have to purchase a copy of websites before indexing them
The question is what they do with that copy and how it can be used. There are probably many cases where legally and morally, Google should not be allowing users to see the cache that was created (supposedly) for *searching*. For example, an ad-funded website. This isn't as extreme as the book example, since in most websites, the information is freely available, and accessing it via Google isn't always that much more convenient; but it's still a valid argument. The book example simply makes it stronger because there's a clear benefit (for the consumer) to accessing the free copy via Google.
Well, certainly, but this service provided by Google can only help the authors.
Sorry, but it's blanket statements like this that annoy me. No doubt in many cases (e.g. fiction), it will help the authors, since who the heck wants to read the whole latest Stephen King via Google? (And if you want to pirate it, you can buy the book, there are probably easier ways of going about it). But in other cases (e.g. reference works), I believe that there's enough doubt that it will always be beneficial that you can't use that argument.
The only question, IMO, is whether or not Google should be allowed to have complete digital copies of the books in their database.
The only question IMHO is whether Google should allow access to these complete copies in such a manner that it may be used as a replacement to the original books. As I said, this depends on the nature of a "snippet" and the nature of the original book as well.
Utilitarian arguements are not moral arguements, I'd need to see a moral arguement that justifies using force which limits the free flow of information.
The *moral* argument is that if someone puts effort into creating something original which would (in all probability) not otherwise have been created, then they should be able to reap the rewards (if there are any; there is no onus to subsidise) in the same way that people who "created" physical items should.
By the way, all "moral" arguments are "utilitarian" if you take them down low enough; morals exist because (in theory) they ultimately benefit everyone. So, you could argue that the above is 'utilitarian' not moral; but then, you could argue that about anything if you took it far enough.
Really? Had I bought a book(and I have), I would not consider someone forbidding me to copy my personal property to be acceptable by default.
Huh?! Have you ever heard of copyright law?
I think you'll find that- with certain *limited* exemptions for personal use in some countries- it does exactly this. If I create an original work (books included) and you buy a "personal copy", by default (in most countries) you don't have permission to copy it.
I don't buy movies or music from *AA companies any more, to protest their tactics. But I have bought literally 10,000s of books in my life and will probably buy a lot more. How can I make sure never to buy a book from an Authors Guild writer or company?
Only buy typewritten, photocopied and staple-bound books from your local hippie-collective bookshop.
And then copy them yourselves and don't worry about the bookshop going out of business, because information wants to be free and they'd be uber-capitalist hypocrites if they or their authors were to sue you for wanting compensation for copying their material.
Listen; as I said elsewhere, Google are a commercial company (albeit one who usually behave in a better manner than the stereotype), the Author's Guild members have both the moral right to say (within reason) what is done with their work and to receive compensation for it. Especially w.r.t. reference works, searchability *might* damage the sales of books; it might encourage sales in other cases, but let's not consider this as a black and white issue. If nothing else, the authors themselves should have the right to that decision.
Personally, had I written a book, I would not consider someone copying it without permission and making it searchabe to be acceptable by default.
It might "benefit" people in general, but if it doesn't benefit the author too, I think they have a right to be unhappy about this.
You, of course, have the right to boycott their books, but this seems like a kneejerk "information wants to be free and anyone who stops this is bad" reaction without considering the wider issues.
Upon utilising the search engine and associated search algorithms we can look and search within every title and work for relevant information, and disregard the irrelevancies, with no more hassle than a couple of clicks on a browser.
And you don't have to pay the author for that snippet of information!
Libraries also allows users to read the entire text of a book
Libraries allow users to read the entire text of a book; not the entire text of a copy of a book. That *is* the difference. They still have the original book.
To prevent access to a searchable library to the entire populous of the world is to hide information and create a teired society, those who have access to the information and those that do not. This is backward and unjust.
I agree with you to some extent, but it's not the Author's Guild's responsibility to provide free information to everyone in the world, even if that were desirable. They've also got to look after their members interests. I'll bet a large proportion of their members aren't *that* greedy and self-interested; nevertheless, they are doing a job, they require compensation, and to some extent that's always going to restrict the flow of information.
Whatever your views on the Google corporation it is unjust to take legal action against such a noble scheme
Google's aim is to make money; now, I'm not about to bash that (particularly not if they do it in an enlightened manner), but let's bear this in mind before we start using words like "noble". It's not a zero-sum game, and if everyone wins; fine. But please take off the rose-tinted spectacles when discussing Google, even before you've considered the holes in your argument above.
You might be able to find burger king on the web with it, but not hamburger recipies, because the people that run amateur recipe websites would not think to add a code to allow their page to be indexed.
Only because that's not the way things are done now. If it were the norm to require searchability flags, most people would have them turned on by default, or the software they use would do that.