Those obligations are contractual obligations to the distributor in other regions. ``I'll sell this in europe, you sell in the US. Here's a contract where we'll agree to that''
But, such constraints do not OBLIGATE me to do the same. The only constraint I have is copyright law, which supposedly deliminates only certain particular rights that are reserved to the copyright holder. The ability to restrict the trading of copyrighted works, after being sold, was tested in court, and found to be unconscionable. ('doctrine of first sale') The court case that established this was when an evil store wished to sell used books, which a publisher did not wish, because it depressed the price of new books.
To respond to the great grandparent. You forget that copying isn't necessarily copyright infringment. Extracting snippets from a copyrighted work, performing a parody or critical satire, duplication for purposes of backup, etc. These all explicitly require copying, yet are generally considered to not be copyright infringment.
Ergo, the only thing that can decide whether or not a use of a copyrighted work is infringement is a court of law. (Though in many cases, there are pre-existing precedents to guide the court.)
In conclusion, copyright law is not and was NEVER intended to give an artist the right to control all possible users of the copyrighted work in any way they see fit. (Like banning the sale of used books or libraries.)
And yes, I do get pissed when I spend $50 on a new game, and get to enjoy design defects that were purposely introduced.
Are there not consumer-protection legistlations to protect consumers from design defects in a product, especially in the case where the design defects cause it to become more expensive, and reduce the price and profitability of the device.
MAPS is a vigilante group. All one has to do is look through their website. They're blocking people for not doing a '3 stage mailing list acceptance protocol'? WTF?
Or, go check out their 'DUL'.
I'll be happy when they go away.
Every dollar not spent on software is a dollar
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 2
Every dollar not spent on software is a dollar that is spent on new equipment, that is spent on employee salaries, that's returned to the stockholders as dividends for them to purchase chocolate with.
Every dollar not spent on software is a dollar that can be invested elsewhere..
And this is a good thing, for those businesses, and for society.
Damn it.... Douglas adams might have been a nice guy, but now the h2g2 stuff will be under the thumb of his estate... For the next 75 years.
Why will I be dead 20 years by the time that h2g2 joins its place in our culture with Santa Clause in the public domain?
Eh... Maybe my great grand kids will be able to enjoy Aurthur Dent with santa clause.... Here's hoping that the estate isn't a dominating **** that'll try to milk h2g2 for all the money they can.
Nope... It's got an unfamilar syntax, as someone earlier pointed above.
Programmers do not like a syntax that is not close to the syntax of their first language (usually an algolic variant)..
It's no harder to get used to than C, or any other real language. Try using it with an indenting, syntax hilighting editor for a week. Now, did you spend more than a week when you learned the syntax of your first algolic language?
Anyone notice how all the languages that seem to be coming out are always algolic? And that they suck... They don't even have closures!
The programming landscape is littered with good languages that died because of an 'unfamiliar' syntax.
Smalltalk, Lisp.
True, neither of these languages is ideal for all tasks, but they're both pretty impressive.
LISP runs as fast as C++, and has extensive support of programmed transformation of code. (Thus, you can create, as an app programmer) new syntax and even new semantics. (The OO system CLOS is an application, not built into the compiler.)
Smalltalk is interpreted, but is still very usable on a modern machine. Primitives can be compiled to C under Squeak. It also has beautiful introspection and semantics. It is the result of over 10 years of development in the 70's, and is still a sweet and clean language.
Both languages are still amazing and just as powerful as C... And interactive programming to boot.. But why aren't they used? Is it because programmers are so afraid of new things that they won't spend even an hour learning a different (and potentially better) syntax.
Both languages have a syntax that's far far simpler than C++ or even C. Its also much more elegant. Yet, that superficial difference seems to have sentenced them to death.
Syntax unless egragriously broken[1], is superficial. Semantics is everything.
Well, we put all porn into.xxx, cause thats where all sex goes.
We put all everything not french into.notfrench, to please the france language purists.
We put everything related to nazi's or WW2 (can't have WW2 without nazi's) into.nazi
We put everything not islamic in.burn-the-infidels, cause that's where it belongs.
We put all the popular US brands (coke, nike, joe camel, micheal Jordan, baywatch) in.imperialistic-nasty-american-culture
We put all the info on human rights abuses in china in.human-rights-in-china
We put all info about contraception into.contraception.
We put all inconvenient facts into.inconvenient-facts.
--
And so forth... After all, for every one of these, someone's made it illegal, and we gotta organize it right into the heirarchial DNS system.. Now, if you can't classify it into one catagory, you can't post it.
Congratulations: We've now given the internet exactly one valid domain: www.internet.sucks
They are transport and encapsulation. This says nothing about what's being sent:
A query like:
is useless for interoperability unless you know WHAT the encapsulated data is and how to interpret it. All you get from XML-RPC is encapsulation, transport, and easy generation/parsing.
These are good deeds and noble goals... But interoperability requires knowing the semantic meaning of what is sent.
Except that the the servers will be run by Microsoft, the protocols will be either be essentially secret, or be designed such that you *still* have to use microsoft's servers.
Even if the protocol is eventually made public, they can still force you to use their servers. (See the protocol-enforced centralization of ICQ/AIM protocols versus the DNS-based ones of (say) email or http.)
Oh, and you'll probably pay by the minute or pay by the access to use their servers, and there will with no real alternatives.
I would expect this behaivor from.net, combined with the set of other normal techniques. (they own the client software, which doesn't interoperate well with 'other' servers.... change the protocol every other year.... public protocols for encapsulation, but proprietary specifications for the data being encapsulated anyone?..... Outright proprietary protocols.)
This is what I see.net as being: Basically inetd, except poorly designed. Oh, and like MSN from 1994, except cheaper for them cause they don't gotta pay for the modems or phone lines.
While the real public standards would be fully public from the data, encapsulation, and transport. Probably have multiple vendors shipping servers and clients. Real competetion, run your own server, or purchase from a selection of service providers who have purchased the code... Much like HTTP or SMTP.... and the rest of the internet.
There's no free lunch; you're obviously paying for what services you use either way. But, which option will likely give you better service, more choice, higher stability, cheaper prices, and more control over your critical computing infrastructure.
One way makes Microsoft a perpetual middleman, in control and siphoning money. The other way gives you a choice.
I'm taking no sides. Nor am I claiming that this is what they do or don't do...
But, most drugs I've seen have public research, and the rights are sold off.... Oxford *is* claiming 'intellectual property' rights on anything that is discovered. So... They publish research results it as a scientific study (as they must if they wish to actually get the drug past the FDA), then they charge some random drug-company through the nose for exclusive rights to their 'intellectual property', which passes on those costs to the people.
While it is true that a lot of academic research used to be public and distributed and used freely, in the modern age of software, thats becoming less and less true... Where is google's codebase? What about the patents Lycos got on their search engine years ago?
Publicly published results != public domain; useable by anyone.
Given this new modern regime, I'd believe the origional author of the rant, barring clear evidence to the contrary. What you've held up as evidence does not pass any such standard; about hte only thing that would would be `we will claim no intellectual property righs upon any discovered drug and any results will be available in the public domain'.. Which I'm not hearing.
(True, I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Without some carrot, who will spend the billion dollars it may take to get a wonder-drug approved for use by humans? An expensive cure is ALWAYS preverable to no cure at all.)
Good article.. But, we cannot continue to use their words: 'piracy' or 'theft' versus 'copyright infringement' or 'unauthorized duplication'. 'digital rights management' versus 'digital control'. Is it 'theft' to play and 'share' your favorite song with a friend.
These are important distinctions. Don't use their words. As Orwell pointed out in 1984. If you can control the language people use to communicate, you have won the battle for their minds. Copyright holders have already taken control of the language. We already have a copyright Newspeak; I refuse to use it. So should you.
When you say 'other sorts of digital rights management.' that sounds mild, but replace that with 'other sorts of digital control', and people gain a fuller understanding of the consequences.
Then, the tagline of the MPAA/RIAA can read: `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital control to prevent copyright infringement.' versus `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital rights management to prevent thieving pirates'.
LOL... I wish I knew that this would be coming up... Hans is intending to hire me in a couple of months to do the next step.. Putting this in an actual robot. We're not sure exactly what I'll do. He's been busy on the presentation for the last few weeks for us to discuss it.
Most of the stuff you see is data collected several years ago. The office scenes are from 1996.
Gimme a moment to set up a URL.. I'll spit out a binary and a datafile so you can navigate the room yourself. See the result of the program, in all it's brokenness and accuracy.:)
Current status: (which was interrupted recently due to making the report)
He's about to collect a new dataset with a trinocular vision system, and redo the code to build the occupancy grids. The new dataset should have fewer errors and 'streak' artifacts. (There are subte reasons why it's screwing up on that dataset) His code should be able to build a new occupancy grid every few seconds.
The next stage should include putting it in a real robot. (Which I've seen.. It's a cute, its wheels look like saw blades.) building maps automatically. The eventual target is an external 'head' that can be bolted onto any robot.
(One thing I should finish before he gets back is a new viewer for the occupancy grids. So I can get a 'birds eye idea' of what they look like.. Eyeball them for myself before building code that will be playing with them.)
Too bad I'm a CS Theory weenie instead of robotics.. But it will be one hell of a cool next year.
PS: Tip for everyone... Dumb luck strikes, but you have to make your own luck and grab it when you get it. I met Hans only a couple of months ago. Hans was walking out one day. (By the newly key-carded doors). I was talking to him and asked if he thought the CMU administration were malicious, he said he thought they were inept. I asked what his research was, and it went from there.
And one right that we must have is the right of backups. So one of these 'enumerated' fair-use rights must be to make full backups of your expensive media.
No, it is not acceptable for them to offer a service that will send me extra copies. I have no assurance that they will be in business in 2 years, 10 years, or 50 years.
That's the issue. You cannot, in TECHNICAL TERMS distinguish between fair use and infringment. The only thing that can make that determination is a LEGAL COURT OF LAW.
So, even if you could construct, and keep up to date, such a hypothetical list, there still would be no way for a technical measure to determine whether or not the use it is put is on the list.
Well, if I could get what I wished, I'd arson the headquarters of the radical environemental movement and radical animal rights movement for crimes against humanity. (banning DDT, stopping golden rice.)
Lets see.. I'd also turn Bill Gates into a clown, and make COBOL the standard programming language.
Oh, and I'd also give myself a $100,000/year salary, but no job.
But we don't live in a country where you get something by wishing for it. What you do is limited by law. Copyright law forbids infringement or public presentation. Printing or cutting&pasting can be infringement, or it can be fair use. It doesn't matter what the artist wants, what matters is what the law says.
You mean that depriving an artist of money is theft?
Well, have I got a lot of cans of human&animal shit to sell you. (Some have bought them as art works. Now it's your turn to pay up.)
Or, do you mean that infringing the rights (copyright) granted under the law is theft? Well, the courts disagree. Theft is stealing a tangible good. Infringement is violating rights granted to artists.
Is the public domain theft? Is the fact that Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, and all the rest are in the public domain a theft from the descendents of Thomas Nast? The government, in the guise of the public good, offers limited exclusive rights to artists with the expectation of the works entering the public domain. But, you seem to turn that around into the public domain being a place of thieves and pirates.
I love good writers too. And I will be happy to purchase electronic works from them if the price is reasonable and the file format's allow me, like paper, to read them how and where I want.
He cannot be fighting for the theft of any of his artistic works... For he has none. There can be no theft of any artistic work.
He has exclusive rights granted by him under law which may be infringed. He may be angry about the widespread infringement of those exclusive rights.
Artistic works under copyright are owned by the public upon creation. The government gives artists explicit and exclusive rights under law. Those rights may be sold or transferred.
Your right to throw a punch ends when it hit's my face.
This is true for literal punches, and for metaphorical punches. The punch from artists and organized media to extend copyrights from 28 to >95 years (not to mention the DMCA) is a horrible punch toward the public. Toward the first amendment. A horrible punch which they have no right to throw and to hit.
Artistic works in the public domain benefit the public. Artistic works not in the public domain do not.
Imagine a world like only a centrury ago where copyrights had only been extended to 42 years. Star Trek (ToS) would be barely a decade from leaving copyright.. I Love Lucy would be coming up soon. Mickey Mouse would finally join his peers Santa Clause and Uncle Sam... Rudolph could join the other 8 reindeer in the public domain. (Rudolph was created about 40 years ago)
By assuming that artists have natural rights to artistic works, as compared to rights explicitly granted them under law, you do us a disservice.
Artistic works are never property. The rights granted by law to artists may be sold or transferred. The artistic work is owned by the public from it's inception.
Slashdot Mirror
Those obligations are contractual obligations to the distributor in other regions. ``I'll sell this in europe, you sell in the US. Here's a contract where we'll agree to that''
But, such constraints do not OBLIGATE me to do the same. The only constraint I have is copyright law, which supposedly deliminates only certain particular rights that are reserved to the copyright holder. The ability to restrict the trading of copyrighted works, after being sold, was tested in court, and found to be unconscionable. ('doctrine of first sale') The court case that established this was when an evil store wished to sell used books, which a publisher did not wish, because it depressed the price of new books.
To respond to the great grandparent. You forget that copying isn't necessarily copyright infringment. Extracting snippets from a copyrighted work, performing a parody or critical satire, duplication for purposes of backup, etc. These all explicitly require copying, yet are generally considered to not be copyright infringment.
Ergo, the only thing that can decide whether or not a use of a copyrighted work is infringement is a court of law. (Though in many cases, there are pre-existing precedents to guide the court.)
In conclusion, copyright law is not and was NEVER intended to give an artist the right to control all possible users of the copyrighted work in any way they see fit. (Like banning the sale of used books or libraries.)
strace, which uses posix tracing, can trace every system call made by an application.
Actually, I frequently use it when debugging. Program doesn't start up correctly, I run it under strace to see if there's a file it can't find.
It'll show you every subprocess, every kernel call, every file access, network access, etc.
'strace netscape'
or
'strace -eopen netscape'
And yes, I do get pissed when I spend $50 on a new game, and get to enjoy design defects that were purposely introduced.
Are there not consumer-protection legistlations to protect consumers from design defects in a product, especially in the case where the design defects cause it to become more expensive, and reduce the price and profitability of the device.
But, there is another issue to keep in mind:
There is very little precedent for people putting out their source code and allowing other people to make derivative works.
Thus, this issue does not come up in an example like that. Standard proprietary development is done under contractual restrictions.
So, we've got monied interests on one side, and people who want freedom on the other. Personally, I'd say to give it to the good guys.
MAPS is a vigilante group. All one has to do is look through their website. They're blocking people for not doing a '3 stage mailing list acceptance protocol'? WTF?
Or, go check out their 'DUL'.
I'll be happy when they go away.
Every dollar not spent on software is a dollar that is spent on new equipment, that is spent on employee salaries, that's returned to the stockholders as dividends for them to purchase chocolate with.
Every dollar not spent on software is a dollar that can be invested elsewhere..
And this is a good thing, for those businesses, and for society.
Damn it.... Douglas adams might have been a nice guy, but now the h2g2 stuff will be under the thumb of his estate... For the next 75 years.
Why will I be dead 20 years by the time that h2g2 joins its place in our culture with Santa Clause in the public domain?
Eh... Maybe my great grand kids will be able to enjoy Aurthur Dent with santa clause.... Here's hoping that the estate isn't a dominating **** that'll try to milk h2g2 for all the money they can.
It is a sad day.
Did you look through the mailing list for ReiserFS?
If you had, you'd have seen that Reiserfs is journaling (Well, actually log structured)
It reserves 32mb for the log... Ergo, 32mb of missing space. If I remember right, you can decrease this when formatting it.
Nope... It's got an unfamilar syntax, as someone earlier pointed above.
Programmers do not like a syntax that is not close to the syntax of their first language (usually an algolic variant)..
It's no harder to get used to than C, or any other real language. Try using it with an indenting, syntax hilighting editor for a week. Now, did you spend more than a week when you learned the syntax of your first algolic language?
Anyone notice how all the languages that seem to be coming out are always algolic? And that they suck... They don't even have closures!
Syntax is superficial. Semantics is everything.
The programming landscape is littered with good languages that died because of an 'unfamiliar' syntax.
Smalltalk, Lisp.
True, neither of these languages is ideal for all tasks, but they're both pretty impressive.
LISP runs as fast as C++, and has extensive support of programmed transformation of code. (Thus, you can create, as an app programmer) new syntax and even new semantics. (The OO system CLOS is an application, not built into the compiler.)
Smalltalk is interpreted, but is still very usable on a modern machine. Primitives can be compiled to C under Squeak. It also has beautiful introspection and semantics. It is the result of over 10 years of development in the 70's, and is still a sweet and clean language.
Both languages are still amazing and just as powerful as C... And interactive programming to boot.. But why aren't they used? Is it because programmers are so afraid of new things that they won't spend even an hour learning a different (and potentially better) syntax.
Both languages have a syntax that's far far simpler than C++ or even C. Its also much more elegant. Yet, that superficial difference seems to have sentenced them to death.
Syntax unless egragriously broken[1], is superficial. Semantics is everything.
[1] overcomplicated (APL: >100 operators, C++) Verbose (Java/Pascal).
Well, we put all porn into .xxx, cause thats where all sex goes.
.notfrench, to please the france language purists.
.nazi
.burn-the-infidels, cause that's where it belongs.
.imperialistic-nasty-american-culture
.human-rights-in-china
.contraception.
.inconvenient-facts.
We put all everything not french into
We put everything related to nazi's or WW2 (can't have WW2 without nazi's) into
We put everything not islamic in
We put all the popular US brands (coke, nike, joe camel, micheal Jordan, baywatch) in
We put all the info on human rights abuses in china in
We put all info about contraception into
We put all inconvenient facts into
--
And so forth... After all, for every one of these, someone's made it illegal, and we gotta organize it right into the heirarchial DNS system.. Now, if you can't classify it into one catagory, you can't post it.
Congratulations: We've now given the internet exactly one valid domain: www.internet.sucks
Doh! Slashdot nuking tag-like entities:
<query data="414324hg3j5hg34j5g3" command="4j2f345hj3g5hj3g5jh32" encrypted_paramater="4325435435254">
Is not interpretable.
Why repeat myself when I already answered this claim?
They are transport and encapsulation. This says nothing about what's being sent:
A query like:
is useless for interoperability unless you know WHAT the encapsulated data is and how to interpret it. All you get from XML-RPC is encapsulation, transport, and easy generation/parsing.
These are good deeds and noble goals... But interoperability requires knowing the semantic meaning of what is sent.
Except that the the servers will be run by Microsoft, the protocols will be either be essentially secret, or be designed such that you *still* have to use microsoft's servers.
.net, combined with the set of other normal techniques. (they own the client software, which doesn't interoperate well with 'other' servers.... change the protocol every other year.... public protocols for encapsulation, but proprietary specifications for the data being encapsulated anyone?..... Outright proprietary protocols.)
.net as being: Basically inetd, except poorly designed. Oh, and like MSN from 1994, except cheaper for them cause they don't gotta pay for the modems or phone lines.
Even if the protocol is eventually made public, they can still force you to use their servers. (See the protocol-enforced centralization of ICQ/AIM protocols versus the DNS-based ones of (say) email or http.)
Oh, and you'll probably pay by the minute or pay by the access to use their servers, and there will with no real alternatives.
I would expect this behaivor from
This is what I see
While the real public standards would be fully public from the data, encapsulation, and transport. Probably have multiple vendors shipping servers and clients. Real competetion, run your own server, or purchase from a selection of service providers who have purchased the code... Much like HTTP or SMTP.... and the rest of the internet.
There's no free lunch; you're obviously paying for what services you use either way. But, which option will likely give you better service, more choice, higher stability, cheaper prices, and more control over your critical computing infrastructure.
One way makes Microsoft a perpetual middleman, in control and siphoning money. The other way gives you a choice.
I'm taking no sides. Nor am I claiming that this is what they do or don't do...
But, most drugs I've seen have public research, and the rights are sold off.... Oxford *is* claiming 'intellectual property' rights on anything that is discovered. So... They publish research results it as a scientific study (as they must if they wish to actually get the drug past the FDA), then they charge some random drug-company through the nose for exclusive rights to their 'intellectual property', which passes on those costs to the people.
While it is true that a lot of academic research used to be public and distributed and used freely, in the modern age of software, thats becoming less and less true... Where is google's codebase? What about the patents Lycos got on their search engine years ago?
Publicly published results != public domain; useable by anyone.
Given this new modern regime, I'd believe the origional author of the rant, barring clear evidence to the contrary. What you've held up as evidence does not pass any such standard; about hte only thing that would would be `we will claim no intellectual property righs upon any discovered drug and any results will be available in the public domain'.. Which I'm not hearing.
(True, I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Without some carrot, who will spend the billion dollars it may take to get a wonder-drug approved for use by humans? An expensive cure is ALWAYS preverable to no cure at all.)
Either we callit piracy and theft, or we call it infringement.
If they can call it piracy and theft, then we should too.
Though I'd be happier if everyone called it what it is: copyright infringement.
How often has a producer of a good thats in high demand refused to sell it to consumers?
How long did it take from the sale of the VCR's to the movie studio's selling prerecorded cassetts?
How long did it take from the sale of the magnetic audio tape to citizens before the RIAA started selling prerecorded tapes by the bucket?
Thus, why is this situation different? Why would the movie studio's or music publishers NOT rush out to sell this new market?
Good article.. But, we cannot continue to use their words: 'piracy' or 'theft' versus 'copyright infringement' or 'unauthorized duplication'. 'digital rights management' versus 'digital control'. Is it 'theft' to play and 'share' your favorite song with a friend.
These are important distinctions. Don't use their words. As Orwell pointed out in 1984. If you can control the language people use to communicate, you have won the battle for their minds. Copyright holders have already taken control of the language. We already have a copyright Newspeak; I refuse to use it. So should you.
When you say 'other sorts of digital rights management.' that sounds mild, but replace that with 'other sorts of digital control', and people gain a fuller understanding of the consequences.
Then, the tagline of the MPAA/RIAA can read: `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital control to prevent copyright infringement.' versus `We are for the DMCA because it lets us enforce new forms of digital rights management to prevent thieving pirates'.
LOL... I wish I knew that this would be coming up... Hans is intending to hire me in a couple of months to do the next step.. Putting this in an actual robot. We're not sure exactly what I'll do. He's been busy on the presentation for the last few weeks for us to discuss it.
:)
Most of the stuff you see is data collected several years ago. The office scenes are from 1996.
Gimme a moment to set up a URL.. I'll spit out a binary and a datafile so you can navigate the room yourself. See the result of the program, in all it's brokenness and accuracy.
Current status: (which was interrupted recently due to making the report)
He's about to collect a new dataset with a trinocular vision system, and redo the code to build the occupancy grids. The new dataset should have fewer errors and 'streak' artifacts. (There are subte reasons why it's screwing up on that dataset) His code should be able to build a new occupancy grid every few seconds.
The next stage should include putting it in a real robot. (Which I've seen.. It's a cute, its wheels look like saw blades.) building maps automatically. The eventual target is an external 'head' that can be bolted onto any robot.
(One thing I should finish before he gets back is a new viewer for the occupancy grids. So I can get a 'birds eye idea' of what they look like.. Eyeball them for myself before building code that will be playing with them.)
Too bad I'm a CS Theory weenie instead of robotics.. But it will be one hell of a cool next year.
PS: Tip for everyone... Dumb luck strikes, but you have to make your own luck and grab it when you get it. I met Hans only a couple of months ago. Hans was walking out one day. (By the newly key-carded doors). I was talking to him and asked if he thought the CMU administration were malicious, he said he thought they were inept. I asked what his research was, and it went from there.
And one right that we must have is the right of backups. So one of these 'enumerated' fair-use rights must be to make full backups of your expensive media.
No, it is not acceptable for them to offer a service that will send me extra copies. I have no assurance that they will be in business in 2 years, 10 years, or 50 years.
That's the issue. You cannot, in TECHNICAL TERMS distinguish between fair use and infringment. The only thing that can make that determination is a LEGAL COURT OF LAW.
So, even if you could construct, and keep up to date, such a hypothetical list, there still would be no way for a technical measure to determine whether or not the use it is put is on the list.
Well, if I could get what I wished, I'd arson the headquarters of the radical environemental movement and radical animal rights movement for crimes against humanity. (banning DDT, stopping golden rice.)
Lets see.. I'd also turn Bill Gates into a clown, and make COBOL the standard programming language.
Oh, and I'd also give myself a $100,000/year salary, but no job.
But we don't live in a country where you get something by wishing for it. What you do is limited by law. Copyright law forbids infringement or public presentation. Printing or cutting&pasting can be infringement, or it can be fair use. It doesn't matter what the artist wants, what matters is what the law says.
You mean that depriving an artist of money is theft?
Well, have I got a lot of cans of human&animal shit to sell you. (Some have bought them as art works. Now it's your turn to pay up.)
Or, do you mean that infringing the rights (copyright) granted under the law is theft? Well, the courts disagree. Theft is stealing a tangible good. Infringement is violating rights granted to artists.
Is the public domain theft? Is the fact that Santa Clause, Uncle Sam, and all the rest are in the public domain a theft from the descendents of Thomas Nast? The government, in the guise of the public good, offers limited exclusive rights to artists with the expectation of the works entering the public domain. But, you seem to turn that around into the public domain being a place of thieves and pirates.
I love good writers too. And I will be happy to purchase electronic works from them if the price is reasonable and the file format's allow me, like paper, to read them how and where I want.
He cannot be fighting for the theft of any of his artistic works... For he has none. There can be no theft of any artistic work.
He has exclusive rights granted by him under law which may be infringed. He may be angry about the widespread infringement of those exclusive rights.
Artistic works under copyright are owned by the public upon creation. The government gives artists explicit and exclusive rights under law. Those rights may be sold or transferred.
By calling it theft, you do us a disservice.
Your right to throw a punch ends when it hit's my face.
This is true for literal punches, and for metaphorical punches. The punch from artists and organized media to extend copyrights from 28 to >95 years (not to mention the DMCA) is a horrible punch toward the public. Toward the first amendment. A horrible punch which they have no right to throw and to hit.
Artistic works in the public domain benefit the public. Artistic works not in the public domain do not.
Imagine a world like only a centrury ago where copyrights had only been extended to 42 years. Star Trek (ToS) would be barely a decade from leaving copyright.. I Love Lucy would be coming up soon. Mickey Mouse would finally join his peers Santa Clause and Uncle Sam... Rudolph could join the other 8 reindeer in the public domain. (Rudolph was created about 40 years ago)
By assuming that artists have natural rights to artistic works, as compared to rights explicitly granted them under law, you do us a disservice.
Artistic works are never property. The rights granted by law to artists may be sold or transferred. The artistic work is owned by the public from it's inception.