I've been called a 'troll' several times too, but mostly by small-minded people that didn't like what I had to say, because it involved criticism.
But so what? It's proof one is doing something good, I say, if people try to use a common fallacy (claiming someone is a troll to invalidate what he says, while, even *IF* he was a troll, it still wouldn't say anything about the validity of *what* he said) to shut you up.
That said - and mind you, I have had experience with (the stiffling of) free speech, as one can see on my blog - I do think slashdot is one of the greatest systems invented yet, to allow ALL people their free speech. It is true: things that are considered crap get a low rating, and people can decide to skip that, but in principle, you ARE given the possibility to speak your mind and to be read by the public that wishes so.
Look at this thread: even while you are on 'troll, -1' I still read your post, and I still replied.
So, first of all, I doubt you are being targeted for political reasons; slashdot may have a 'libertarian' viewpoint most of the time, there are enough zealots from the right and left (both to the extremes and not) to be pretty balanced on the pure political side.
But, even if you *are* being targeted for political reasons, it is incorrect to claim your right to free speech has been taken away. If they would *delete* it, yes, then you might have a point. But because the readers rate your postings low, does not mean you are derived of your free speech right on this forum, IMHO.
"If you're saying that you imagine a world where such contracts are illegal, you're saying more than just that copyright is eliminated, you're saying agreements to keep secrets are and unenforceable legally, which is more than an issue of eliminating copyright protection, it's the establishment of new protection against people making private agreements about keeping secrets in private contracts."
I'm saying that, *within the context* of copyrights - which we were talking about - that my above statement about the GPL/copyrights is not only substantiated, but also correct.
If you go outside that context, and claim contractual limitations could be imposed, then I can claim contractual clauses that would prohibit someone (by contract) of distributing public domain material, could be declared void. Just as some clauses in contracts NOW are already void, whether one freely agreed to it or not.
And what's more, you can do that (and it is being done already as my example proves) WITHOUT making contracts in general illegal - which you correctly point out would be completely unfeasable. It is not that farfetched to imagine the state or government declare that clauses which restrict public domain material thus, that it becomes in essence non-public domain, are void. (And certainly when compared with the hypothetical situation they already agreed with abolishing copyright;-)
I don't see how this is so difficult to accept, at least as a thought-exercise. Even now, you have laws that define the rights of fair use or free speech, for instance. Thus, say, a record company like the RIAA would let you sign a contract where it is explicitly mentionned you can not use your right of fair use or even prohibits any fair use at all, you would *still* have that right. That clause would simply be found legally void by the court.
So, all by all, there are examples enough to demonstrate that it would not be impossible for a state to declare that clauses which limit and restrict the use of public material, are void. But this whole hypothetical reasoning only comes into play if you go beyond the mere copyrights-issue, of course.
"The modified version in this hypothetical is not available to the public domain."
Ok, I let's make clear some points, or we'll just keep saying the same things. If there is no copyright (and for arguments sake, no other IP), and everything created falls into the public domain, then how is a derivative work not in the public domain? This does not make any sense. If I use material within the public domain today, and I make a modification, and I can't copyright it, then obviously, it falls within the public domain - whether or not it actually *IS* accessable to the public. the contractual limitations you speak about, do not change that. Other means exist too; I could, for instance, decide to keep my modified PD material for myself, thus making it impossible for the public to access it.
Neither changes the fact the works itself ARE under the publmic domain, if the law would say that is the default and no other copyright is possible.
"Copyright may be, at some level, controversial, and you might convince a government somewhere to eliminate copyright (as in our hypothetical here), but I doubt you can convince a government anywhere to eliminate either contracts or secrets, nor to make unenforceable the idea of a voluntarily entered contract where one party promises to keep a secret."
I even doubt, in any practical sense, that copyrights will ever be abolsihed, at least within this millenium. It's just too much entranched in our laws to be pragmatically possible to completely get rid of it in the near future. But, as I said, I'm not debating this issue, I'm debating the principles of the matter concerning the remark of the GPL and the implied worth that would show towards copyright.
But in the hypothetical context where no copyrights would exist, your last comment is not entirely to the point. It's not about convincing a government to *eliminate* all contracts, it is sufficient to limit the scope and extend of what is permited in those contracts. and clearly, that does not fall outside the possibility, since governments are already doing that. For prove of that, see my previous example:
"For instance, you can't contractually bind a customer to wave his rights to return a product within (in the case of my country) 14 days, even if he voluntarely signed a contract that says he did. This is because the law says you have that right as a customer, whatever the contract says, and thus, that clause automatically becomes void."
According to your theory, since the that customer has freely engaged himself and signed a contract when buying his product, that he can not return the product, there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
I mean, if he didn't like the provisions of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it, but since he did, he is forced to abide by them, right? Wrong. The law permits any customer to return a bought product within (in my case 14 days), even without giving a reason (with the exeption of food and the like, obviously).
Thus, it is more then clear some clauses of contractual obligations can be declared void - without eliminating the principle of contracts itself.
All this is disgressing from the main point, however, which was that GPL users use the GPL not because they are thrilled by the concept of copyright - or even find it useful on itself, but because we already live in a world where copyrights exist which limit the use of works. If copyrights were abolished, they would not need the GPL anymore, and contractual limitations and the question what clauses could be valid or not, have nothing to do with this debate, since those are independend from copyrights.
This is all besides the point. Copyrightlaw, as most IP laws, explicitly mentiones the fact that it is for a limited time, with the purpose of promoting innovation (new creations); this follows because people are (or at least were) aware that it is a trade-off between what benefits society as a whole and what benefits the creator as an incentive so he can create more works.
That balance has been shifted immer more towards that which only benefits the copyrightholders, thanks to their powerful lobbies (which mostly aren't the real creators anyway). Instead of a balance, it has become an unbalance, and this extra addition of making it last 100 years is yet another huge testimony to that. The term 'for a limited period' has become mere lipservice to those that would deny society it's rights that were originally given to it *within* the same copyrightlaw which the **AA&co are using to amass ever more money.
I refute the anglo-saxon neo-liberal ideology that claims the only worth lies in what financial profit it can bring to a few, regardless of the ramification to society. When such an ideology of 'limitless copyright' would have become true thousands of years ago, then after a while, you couldn't do diddly anymore. And yes, this is double true with patents, but copyright isn't exempt from it. If from the earliest times onwards, every meaningful combination starting with two notes would have been copyrighted, and the copyright would last for ever, then eventually, no music could be made anymore without infringing on hundreds of copyrighted combinations. (And this is not beyond the scope or possibility of copyright, because I remember that even a certain amount of *silence* between notes has been copyrighted already.)
And, mind you, the claim you make of 'You can perform them.' isn't even true (but if it were, then still no one could afford licence fees for hundreds of copyright-owners). In reality, it is completely dependend on the wishes of the copyright owner; if he decides you can't, then you can't. Thus, imagine the first person ever to come up with the combinative notes of do-re-mi and the likes, and having perpetual copyright... what would that have meant for music today?
A disaster, indeed.
Imagine our great literary works, such as those of shakespeare, which have been the source of numerous plays, teachings, movies, etc. still being copyrighted. And imagine one of his grand-grand-grand children decides no one can use it anymore (which would be his right)...can you imagine the loss to society?
"They can still offer the program under contract protected by Trade Secret, requiring the end-user to keep the contents of the program confidential. (Sorry to effectively re-introduce Trade Secret, but it's relevant now that you've made this claim.)"
Hey, that's cheating! You explicitly stated you wanted to leave other IP out of it!;-) The 'now that you've made this claim' is a bit silly, since 'no copyright whatsoever' already ( and inherently) includes the fact that one can't use copyright to lay possession of public domain material.
Ofcourse, if you DO bring in other IP, one might argue that other IP could be abolished too.
"Contract law is powerful enough to construct protection, since it is entered into voluntarily by customers."
Well, if contract law is strong enough, why do we need copyprotection for? Then, in effect, it would actually be feasable to abolish copyright, if I were to accept your claim!;-)
But besides, this is only partly true. First of all, contract law is not absolute; it has it's limitations. For instance, you can't bind a customer to wave his rights to return a product within (in the case of my country) 14 days, even if he voluntarely signed a contract that says he did. This is because the law says you have that right as a customer, whatever the contract says, and thus, that clause automatically becomes void.
Thus, if a law would state that a customer has the right to use all public domain material (which would be the case for all copyrighted materials, if copyright is abolished) freely (as in speech), then contract law can't do diddly anymore.
While I have my own opinions about IP, in this case, I'm merely refuting your claim about the GPL and the worth of copyrights that this would imply. It should be clear however, that, viewed on it's own ('it' being copyright), when you do not have any copyright anymore, you don't need the GPL anymore. This is, when you leave out other limitations that restrict the free use of the material, obviously (as you did in your former post).
When one DOES bring other IP-laws into the picture, then obviously, one should deal with those too.
"The Public Domain does not prohibit inclusion of content into commercial programs."
Ah yes, but they couldn't protect it with copyright anymore, so their content/data would be public domain also, and thus, available to all. (I, too, am ignoring the trade secret and patent issue in this discussion).
Besides, the GPL does not prohibit commercial products neither, as you might be aware. So the difference does not lay in the right to make commercial products, the difference is about the freedom of use and the availability to others. Clearly, if no copyright would exist, and everything falls in the public domain, then everyone would have the freedom to use it.
"We are already paying for the protection of copyright."
Not really. All what I write is, in principle, copyprotected. I can assure you, I have never payed a dime for that protection, and neither has anyone else since the international agreement that copyright-owners don't have to register befor getting copyright anymore.
What you pay, is taxes on the income (if any) you derive from that property, but the property itself is not taxed. That like paying taxes on what your houses or other property brings in financial wise, but not paying any taxes on the houses/property itself. I don't know how it is in your country, but here we have to pay just because we *own* the house. If IP *is* property, as is always claimed by the **AA, then it should be dealt with accordingly, just as other property.
"That is one of the things our taxes go for. And regardless of that, what most people on here are advocating is taking away someone's rights."
To some extend this is true, but I fail to see why IP should be exempt. ALL taxes take away someone's rights, namely the right to own property, or to earn money, without having to pay the state. But then again, this is part of living in a society.
"That is like saying "If you do not pay property taxes, anyone can come up and steal your house at any time.""
Well, I doubt the "anyone", but if that is your main objection, then I would say: make it the job of the state (only), just as with other property. I suppose in that case, you don't have any objections anymore? After all, that's no different then what is current practise in society right now. Sure, you can see it as stealing by the state, but then again, if you don't pay your taxes on your houses/property, the state will, indeed, 'steal' your house.
I still have to see the first logical and compelling argument why it would be impossible to argue that IP should be taxed. If the premise that IP IS property is correct, and seen the fact that property (and I mean not only the revenue of that property, but often the property itself) is almost in every country taxed in some way, then the logical conclusion is rather that IP should be taxed too.
"Even the many GPL'ers here at Slashdot should understand this concept, since GPL'd software (sometimes erroneously called "free" software) is anything but freely given. It is given with strings attached--shared, but in point of fact, not given. This is the precise bargain that copyright sought to achieve. I might even question the virtue of the GPL, but I won't question the sheer volume of it. So I must conclude that the qualified bargain it seeks to achieve is natural to a lot of people."
I do not think that last claim is substantiated (if by 'people' you mean those that use the GPL). In all honesty, we all know why GPL-users use copyright (or -left, if you want), and it's not because they are convinced of its intrinsical worth, nor because they all regard it as 'natural'. It's mostly for a pragmatically reason: we *do* live in a world full of copyright, after all, and thus, this is the only way they see for keeping their works free.
If *NO* copyrights whatsoever would exist, then clearly, there would be no need for the GPL.
So, at best your conclusion is doubtful: it is rather more likely that people using the GPL do not see it as a qualified bargain, but rather as a necessary evil.
"The tax rate is incredibly high already, we are paying for every service we recieve and more."
Well, yes...so why should intellectual property be exempt? If it is considered property, it should be able to be taxed like all other property.
"The idea we should have to pay even more to have some right protected is patentedly absurd."
Not really, for the reason I mentioned above. In fact, it would be nothing then reasonable. And while I agree with you we already pay to much taxes, it still not valididates the the exemption for taxes of IP.
"Why not specificaly tax the protection of potatos? Or rutabagas? Maybe we should tax computer ownership?"
Before you can own a computer, you already pay taxes on it. Copyright is now being extended in such an absurd way, that even children and grandchildren can profit from the 'property' of their parents. Do you know of any other hereditary property where taxes don't have to be payed? If IP *IS* property (as the RIAA & co claims), then it should be subjected to everthing all the other property is subjected to.
While I agree there are certainly worthwhile elements in the EU constitution, I would vote 'no' (if my country hadn't withdrawn a promised referendum on the matter), because it fails to do what it should do: make sure that the EU *IS* a democracy.
It's not about ambitious integration, it's about not integrating enough, in a democratic way. The only part in the whole EU that represents directly the 'populace' is the EU parliament. But, while they get some marginal more power as lipservice, the EC (by any other name) is still the one that makes the law. And, I should remind you, that the EC is a bunch of unelected beaurocrats, who do not represent the people, aren't voted by them into office, and don't have any political responsability towards the EU citizens. Yet, they decide on creating laws that could affect millions of those same EU citizens. Does that strike you as fair, or even reasonable? Not to me. To me, it's complete idiotic and utterly undemocratic. In comparison, the EC ALOS got more power, even more so then the EU, which, in total makes things worse instead of better, in the light of becomming a true democracy.
What one should have done is to abolish the EC and the counsel of ministers, whome both are not voted into the positions they have by the populace - unless by far proxy, but that's no proper way of being democratic. Replace them by a senate, and by a directly voted EU president. And make very clear that cultural/moral/ethical/etc subjects stay a matter of soevereign countries; we don't want a one-taste-for-all blending, after all. So keep the petty regulations about stuff the EU shouldn't mess with away, and concentrate on those things that really DO matter; like forming a united front in matters of foreign diplomacy and the military.
Instead, the current trend of the EU is just the oposite: less democracy, more bureaucrats, more meddling in internal affairs, and remaining weak at just the points we should strive to be stronger.
I'm involved in free distribution of text too (http://www.verbumvanum.org/ and I'm utterly amazed at the attitude even so-called 'non-profit' orgs have.
The whole goddamn IP thing should be abolished, I say. True, copyrights are less worse then patents, but still; it's just not of these times anymore. Just as the feodal system didn't work anymore in the industrial age, so doesn't IP work anymore in the cyberage.
In any case, if the authors gave permission, or, if it is in the public domain (which in first instance would be the case, since they'll start with pre-1920 books, as I've understood), then what the f- are they complaining about.
Maybe they earned money distributing books that were in the public domain? Well, heck, though then. I mean, what, we aren't here to subsidise non-profits, after all, and while I understand they're complaining from their view, it's a free market, after all.
I've been wondering, btw. Why didn't anyone come up with the idea to make one giant liberary, with a system that 'lends' ebooks? After three weeks it can't be used anymore, and it becomes available in the lib repository again. That way, it'll EXACTLY work like a regular lib, bypassing all the 'but they copy my work' whiners.
The longer this crap continues, the longer I'm thinking society should move on, and stimulate a sort of mass-online patronage, or an improved flatfee thingy, like we already have now on many 'blanc' copymedia. This way, we would prevent all those lonesome, poor, starving musicians from a terrible hunger-death, and people could do what they already are doing, but then legal.
The current system has become obsolete; people that don't get that yet, are worse off then Don Quichotte.
"I agree with the notion that Newsbyte is a troll and not worth listening to."
Obviously, I disagree.;-)
But, even if I *were* a troll, it still doesn't say anything about the arguments I raised. I mean, how can one value the worth of what has been said the best? By giving arguments and examples, or by shrugging it of as being 'trollish'?
"It turned into a project all its own, with very different design goals, but with the same philosophy of providing an anonymizing network. And his network actually works."
Weird. This is almost the same I pointed out on my blog too. So maybe you are saying the same things as a troll? And if so, maybe that troll is right about other things as well?
My opinions about Freenet
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As I expected, I'm getting viled and praised at the same time. Some call me courageous, some call me a troll.
Well, I don't care either way, as long as people give valid arguments for why my claims in my post are untrue. Alas, few who refute what I say by claiming I'm a troll even try. But, of course, even if I *was* a troll, then still it says nothing about the arguments I made. The tactic of depicting the speaker as an idiot, troll, etc, and thus what he says as being untrue neither, is a well known falacy.
I find it humorous that Ian, in this slasdot thread, says I'm a troll because 'look; he's never provided one line of code to Freenet'...which proves to me he didn't even do the trouble of reading my blog, because that's exactly what I point out in my blog: if you aren't a coder, and don't contribute code, one isn't worth much in the eyes of Ian, whatever one may have done in support as a non-coder.
So, I'm a troll because I've never provided code and I dare to criticise? Wow. Even now, he doesn't see where the problem lies, instead he portrays exactly the attitude that I describe. But still, while I have troubles with the way he manages Freenet, I still think he has had (and still has) some good ideas - something which is important too. I could call him a 'troll' as well, and thus shrug off everything he says, but I'd rather see arguments, especially about the topics that I've raised. But, chances are, I'll be waiting for a very long time; it's much easier to call me a troll, after all.
That said, my opinion of Freenet, as a concept, is still high. People should not make a mistake about that; being all for free speech, I can't else then see any way of making it possible for all people to speak their mind unafraid as something unbelievable valuable. So, it's not Freenet itself that I have a problem with, it's the current way in which it is managed and developed - and I don't say that just out of the blue; I argument it and give examples of it on my blog.
As yet, 'troll' is the most advanced reply I received from the founder. I don't know: maybe I was the wrong person to tell this. Clearly, his bias towards me prevents him from arguing rationally about the points I brought up.
It's true, that sometimes, my blog is a bit harsh, but then again, after seeing and experiencing several years of people being ignored because they are no coders, one gets a bit annoyed by it.
Anyway, maybe Freenet WILL go in the right direction, perhaps... or maybe it will be surpassed by systems like I2P. But, I can bet one thing: its succes or failure won't be determined just by the code.
"yet hasn't actually contributed a single line of code to the project in his several years of trolling the mailing lists."
Well, duh. Did I say something else, ever? That's just the point of what I say on my blog: people that don't offer code, are not much then trolls in your eyes.
"As for the blog entry he links to, it essentially boils down to whining about why we don't implement each and every one of his suggestions."
Hmmm... First of all, it's not merely 'my' suggestions: many of them were suggested by others too. And secondly, it's not about 'each and every one'; not even *one* of all the suggestions I listed on my blog has been implemented.
If you're going to argument about my motives, at least use facts, not generalisations based on bias.
"We can agree to disagree, but that's my viewpoint."
Certainly, as long as we also agree the courts don't agree with you, so you have no legal basis for your claim, and as long, thus, as you acknowledge my reasoning is not a 'rationalisatio of theft' (unless you would argue the courts rationalise theft too).
"What I have a problem with is that some people still choose to steal from those who have choosen NOT to offer their wares for free."
Maybe they don't regard it as stealing? (I thought we've been debating exatly this for numerous posts, now). Even if you do not agree with their viewpoint, at least you must realise by now that THEY (and possibly the courts) might not see it as stealing, and thus have not the moral objections about it that you do?
"That's why I view most of these arguments as nothing more than massive rationalization."
Well, frankly, you'd be better of by using the term 'copyrightinfringement' instead of stealing, then. at least the courts would agree with you then (in most cases).
"And if you think it's okay to rip people off and disregard their wishes, then we grew up in very different moral climates."
That is possible. At least we differ enough in moral climate to disagree about looking at it as 'stealing'. Ofcourse, as I said, legally I can't support the copyrightinfringements that some downloaders do, but the truth be told, it doesn't keep me awake at night neither. I think, in matters of morality, there are far, far more important issues in the world then copyright-infringement.
And, ultimately, 'moral climates' change: what was deemed morally wrong or right 100 years ago, may be reversed today. Maybe, if this sort of IP-infringements continue on a massive scale, sooner or later, one will come to the conclusion that IP laws should better be scrapped, in which case those downloaders wouldn't even be morally wrong.
Of cpourse, this is speculation, but remains a possibilty nevertheless. In any case, even in the current moral climate, I don't see it as stealing, and I'm not lying awake of copyright-infringements. I don't know who's more in line with the actual existing moral climate, frankly.
"Maybe this assumption is false, in which case I do not support shorter time limits."
At least you remain consistent, which I appreciate on itself.:-)
"I believe my earlier argument constitutes adequate proof that copyright is beneficial."
An argumentation does not constitutes proof (neither does mine, ofcourse). I'm sure your argumentation and conclusion seems obvious and logical to you, just as scientists find the theory they propose logical and they have arguments for it. yet, many theories turn out to be false nevertheless.
For instance, I already have explained that I do not consider the fact that people who earn lots of money automatically will invest more in R&D. As at least has shown with patents (and copyright may not be excluded in this area), this is not always the case, and it turns out (at least with patents) that a large part of the IP earnings are redirected from R1D towards the legal departementts (just because of their and others IP). Nothing indicates that copyright doesn't contribute to this neither.
Now, you can disagree with that, and give arguments why you think this is not he case, but you haven't proven that this isn't the case.
Also, even when you would be right that it is economical beneficial, the question remains for whome. For the copyrightholder, probably yes. For society as a whole, this is less clear, since, as I said, one restricts the freedoms of many. Thus, 'beneficial' is dependent on how much one values those freedoms, how much one finds those restrictions annoying or unwarranted, and how much, society (and thus, to the individuals within that society) gets value back. If one could demonstrate that music etc. would dissapear if no IP would exist, this would be obvious. But, seen the history, this seems rather unlikely. You claim the benefits are because we get more and better products, but I disagree. There are myriads of free software/music/etc. available that, at least in my opinion, are equal or surpass the quality of proprietary software/music/etc.
In any case, you have not *proven* that this isn't the case, therefor, you have not proven it is, actually, beneficial, ergo; IP should not be introduced, nor remain (since it was a change) untill your theory as well as the beneficial nature has not been proven.
I mean, let's be honest: if your argumentation about the beneficiality of copyright is enough to constitute proof, then so is mine. What *really* constitute proof, I'm sure we agree, is thourough and independend scientific research of the matter. This has not be done, so while different sides may argue differently, the fact remains it has not been proven one way or another, and since you agree no changes should be made before something is proven, the conclusion one should make is rather clear-cut.
"Not argument, but a comment. I think the real problem at the moment is, to continue the analogy, you CAN'T copy bread. Or housing. Or cars. Or clothes."
Yes, you can, only it takes a great deal of effort and cost. But, as I said, the effort one has done or does, has no bearing on the question whether or not it is stealing.
Say, someone builds a nice house, and you say: damn, I want the same house! And you take the same architect and build it. It costs lots of money and time, for sure. But at the end, you have a copy of your neighbours' house. Then what? According to you, this would be stealing, but you know as well as I that the first owner can't accuse the other of stealing his house. And no court would follow that reasoning neither.
So people CAN copy other products, it's ust a matter of time and effort...but it still wouldn't mean it's theft if they found a way of copying things more easily. Example: if the copy of that house was made faster and cheaper then that of the first owner, would that owner *then* be able to say the other stole his house? I don't think so.
And if that first owner would be able to copy easily other stuff of the latter, would it then be OK? Because that's something else that bothers me with your comment: sure, it is true musicians (and people in general) can't copy goods with the same ease as they can music/etc. But if it is truelly stealing, as you say, what does that matter? Are you saying that if everyone can 'steal' with the same ease, it is not longer 'stealing'? If the ease by which you steal is the measurement of stealing, then stealing bycicles in amsterdam, or stealing apples from a shop that offers them in front of the shop is not stealing.
But then again, maybe the point of 'stealing' has been dropped by you, because I don't see it mentionned anywhere anymore in your post. As I said, even courts don't agree with your premise that copying is stealing, so it can't be shrugged of by saying it's simply me, 'rationalising theft'.;-)
"In that case those who would produce such things must be independently wealthy, do it as a hobby, beg, or hope they find a patron. None of which strike me as particularly great options, especially if the rest of us, as mentioned before, still want all of those games, books, movies, and music."
Indeed, you sum up the possibilites quit nice altough you forgot some as well (musicians could make a living by live performances, for instance, just as the majority does now, and coders could go working for a corp that makes tailored software, just as most do now) And also, modern technologies will allow better variations on the ways you mentionned.
Do I claim everyone will be able to gain his bread that way? Nope. Only the capable or succesful or popular ones will be able to - much as it is today, btw. Exept that being capable isn't much of a requirement anymore, these days in the music-industry;-).
Will it be possible for some exeptions (mostly corps) to become insanely rich, thanks to their IP, while what they gain is not really in comparison with the effort they have made (which is quite possible with IP)? Nope. But I don't think that this should be a goal of society neither, so I have no problem with it.
"My three points were meant only to argue that copyright improves the quantity and quality of available information."
And you go on to say a shorter time limit would not make much difference; but this does not follow from your points, nor is it the logical conclusion to make from them.
If more money = harder work = more quantity&quality of products&services, as you claim, then obviously, a company can gain more money when their IP offers them money for a longer time. Arguing for a shorter time doesn't make much sense, in that case - unless one agrees the theory of those 3 points are an (over)simplification, as I said earlier.
"I believe this tradeoff is well worth it. You apparently don't. I guess that's what it comes down to."
Not quite. If there is *proof* that copyright is (more) beneficial to society then it costs them, I'm prepared to accept it. However, I'm of the same opinion as you: if a change is made it has the burden of proof to show it actually does benefit society.
I mean, we do agree on this, I suppose, since you yourself said no change should be made without proof it is beneficial? When (the various forms) of IP were introduced, was it proven that it was beneficial? And weren't they introduced with as reason they would promote innovation (literally stated in the USA, I believe)? Does it not follow that they have to prove it did/does? In fact, shouldn't they prove it every goddamn time they change the IP laws to introduce longer terms or more restrictions or what not?
But has that been done, and do they do it now? No.
Thus, the IP laws don't deserve the place they have, because not one single time has the introduction of it been *proven* to be beneficial - not afterwards, and certainly not at front. If you abide by your own statement that you can't introduce a change before it has proven to be beneficial, then certainly you must agree that IP don't fit the bill of that premise.
While I understand the sentiment, and for sure, it's never pleasant to go out of business, it still not validates the claims.
The bakery goes out of business, and what then? Well, one could copy the copy then (provided there is no loss in the copying). But regardless, even when it goes out of business, the point I make is, that they couldn't make a case that the person making a copy of their bread and eating that copy, was stealing it.
As for going bust; that may happen to your company, or to the bakery, and to a myriad other businesses, just as has happend in the past to whole industries. Technology and society changes, and those industries that can't cope with it, or are not flexible enough to change, or are made obsolete... dissapear. It sounds harsh, but this has always been the case, and it will always be so.
This is true for any business, however big it may be. The RIAA too, no doubt, will have to change their ways, or face extinction. One can lament that, but then again, those that complain about it don't use obsolete technology or products just to keep old industries or businessmodels alive neither, I presume.
And everytime it happend, those induistries claimed it would be desastrous, and that people would fall without jobs and wouldn't be able to feed their families and that the end was near... and for them, in a certain sense, it was. But every time, people just got other jobs, society adapted just fine and new industries or businessmodels replaced the old ones. It is hard for the people involved, and freightening for those that are used to gather money in an established way - but in a broader context, it's just life in a dynamic macro-economic sense.
"I have not used the term "IP" anywhere in this thread. Only "copyright". You were the one that introduced the term "IP"."
I stand corrected. I'm sorry; I'm in the middle of the same kind of argument with another poster on slashdot that did use the term, and aparently I got you two mixed up.
As I said, copyrights do not have the same monopoly-tendencies as do patents, agreed.
"This is the argument of someone who has no supporting evidence."
LOL. As opposed to you, who has? Can you show me it? In fact, their is supported evidence, as you are well aware by now, at least for patents. There have been very few researchpapers that only handle copyright however, so there I - indeed -don't have supporting evidence.
"Of course, if I wanted to use the same argument, I would argue that since you are the one advocating a major paradigm shift, you must demonstrate why it would be a good idea."
Indeed, and if IP was originaly the way things were, then you would be right. If you take the current situation on itself, and you claim any change to that needs additional argumentation, then you would be correct also. However, let's be honest; we both know it was not the original way, and that IP was introduced, exactly *because* it was supposed to promote innovation. So, if one is honest, the only logical conclusion is, that it is for *those* to prove it actually does what it was supposed to do.
"The current system seems to be working acceptably, so it would be foolish to try undoing it without firm evidence that it will improve things."
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. I don't think it works acceptable at all; I think it sucks. Moreover, in regard to patents, I'm supported by independend research. Also, your reasoning seems rather hypocrite or using a double-standard. If we may not change the system without firm evidence that it will improve things, then why did it already change (by introducing IP) without firm evidence that it would improve things? I agree fullheartedly with your argument, here! But just apply it consistently, to every change.
"Please re-read what I said. I specifically said that competition must exist."
Which IP prevents. If you are speaking solely about copyright, you may have a point, however. Yet, still, it can't be said it is automatically the case: investing in R&D can aumount to novel prodcuts, yes, but it also invloves a risk (that it won't pay of). The market isn't THAT predictable, after all. So, sometimes, an individual or a company may prefer to amass money, without really investing in new things. I would agree that those companies at the end will wither and die, however. Then again, many companies have gone exactly that way.
In any case, you make a good point that getting rid of copyright (specifically) is not the way to fix monopolies.
If you are speaking only about copyrights, then I agree that much of the counterarguments about stae-backed monopolies are not valid. But, as I said, it still imposes restrictons on the freedoms of others, so, IMHO, it still has to prove it is worth those restrictions (and not vice versa; that those being restricted have to prove that it isn't beneficial).
Clearly, copyrights are not regarded as being inherently beneficial (despite the 'obviousness' of your theory), otherwise they wouldn't be limited in time. If only your 3 points would matter, then there is no reason to set any time-limit on it. But in reality, we ALL know it's a trade-off; that is why the laws restrict copyright and all other IP. The difference is, I am oàf the opinion that it should first be proven that the trade-off is beneficial (exactly the same argument you made, actually, for making a change to it).
I doubt that this will be possible for patents, unless in very specific circumstances. Maybe some form of copyright might be more beneficial to society then it costs us, but still - just as you claimed - it should be proven to be the case.
"No, the value was added when the people spent their time, effort, and dollars creating the work."
This does not contradict what I just said. Certainly, things can have value, and those things can be 'taken'. My first point was merely to counter your claim that it is not something that has value per se, that can be taken. I would think this is rather obvious. I didn't say music can not have value for those that 'take' it, however.
"Again, the point is that if the work had no value, it would not be stolen, or taken, or copied, or whatever word you use to rationalize the process."
I prefer to use copied, as you may have gathered. As a generalisation, your statement is simply not true, at least not in every case. Systems like Indy, for example, chose the songs without the user actually chosing them, thus, the user has no idea if and how much value it has. (Indy works with independend music, but the principle rests the same if it weren't). Or say, someone downloads a song he doesn't know and never heard of: the 'value' is unknown to him. It may turn out that it has no value (for him) and that he deletes it afterwards. People do not 'aquire' stuff because of the value others put in, but because of the value they give it, or perceive it to be.
But your whole argument escapes me. If you want to point out that it is copyright infringement, then I already agreed to it in my first post. I just point out that copying is not stealing, for the simple reason that the original owners still own their product. I already gave two times the example of an analogy with physical objects, such as your chair, or bread you baked: if it were possible to copy those, and I used those copies, you might argue I infringed on patents (if you had any on them), but you wouldn't be able to say I stole them, regardless of how much work and time you spend on them. You have ignored this already two times, for the simple reason (I presume), you see I am right.
Furthermore, you also don't have legal standing, because even according to the law, copyright infringement and stealing is not the same, and judges have already reprimanded RIAA-lawyers who equalled the two terms (in just the same manner as you do). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringemen t
Thus, my 'rationalisation' seems to be the same as those of the courts in the USA (and in my country too, btw). Maybe it should occur to you, that my 'rationalisations' are, in effect, rational and correct, while your argumentation why it is the same as stealing is biased and bogus.
"Debated back and forth ad nauseum. Since you said "many" that means that some would. Personally, I think that "many" would if they had no other choice."
Of course some would. That's exactly what I said. The point is, if *some* would, some wouldn't. Therefor, the RIAA can not use that in a blanket way; they have to prove they actually lost something. They usually try to do this by stating that they lose the money they otherwise would have gotten, but this can't be used as default, because only with *some* would they have lost money. So, even when one would accept this weak argument, they should prove that they lost money in that individual case by the copying of the person they sued.
"1) That the U.S. Government and business are not going to repeal copyright and patent law. To think otherwise at this stage of the game is wishful thinking. There may or may not, however, be some level of reform (e.g. software patents)."
Agreed, at least in the forseeable future. I'm not even optimistic about any reform (in a substantial positive way). I was explaining the principle 'wrongness' of IP, and the claim that it is stealing, not the fact that governements would have to wisdom to implement what would be suited for our current cyberage. Basically, they keep hanging on to IP rules and laws that made sense in 200 years ago, even when our society has drastically changed sinc
Slashdot Mirror
"You are assuming only people who believe as you do are 'sophisticated'. There are plenty of sophisticated people who do not agree with you."
;-)
Name two!
I've been called a 'troll' several times too, but mostly by small-minded people that didn't like what I had to say, because it involved criticism.
But so what? It's proof one is doing something good, I say, if people try to use a common fallacy (claiming someone is a troll to invalidate what he says, while, even *IF* he was a troll, it still wouldn't say anything about the validity of *what* he said) to shut you up.
That said - and mind you, I have had experience with (the stiffling of) free speech, as one can see on my blog - I do think slashdot is one of the greatest systems invented yet, to allow ALL people their free speech. It is true: things that are considered crap get a low rating, and people can decide to skip that, but in principle, you ARE given the possibility to speak your mind and to be read by the public that wishes so.
Look at this thread: even while you are on 'troll, -1' I still read your post, and I still replied.
So, first of all, I doubt you are being targeted for political reasons; slashdot may have a 'libertarian' viewpoint most of the time, there are enough zealots from the right and left (both to the extremes and not) to be pretty balanced on the pure political side.
But, even if you *are* being targeted for political reasons, it is incorrect to claim your right to free speech has been taken away. If they would *delete* it, yes, then you might have a point. But because the readers rate your postings low, does not mean you are derived of your free speech right on this forum, IMHO.
Without any doubt, fans of modcases will love this.
ermm...because they are supposed to represent the people, and not the industry?
Oh, no, wait...silly me!
"If you're saying that you imagine a world where such contracts are illegal, you're saying more than just that copyright is eliminated, you're saying agreements to keep secrets are and unenforceable legally, which is more than an issue of eliminating copyright protection, it's the establishment of new protection against people making private agreements about keeping secrets in private contracts."
;-)
I'm saying that, *within the context* of copyrights - which we were talking about - that my above statement about the GPL/copyrights is not only substantiated, but also correct.
If you go outside that context, and claim contractual limitations could be imposed, then I can claim contractual clauses that would prohibit someone (by contract) of distributing public domain material, could be declared void. Just as some clauses in contracts NOW are already void, whether one freely agreed to it or not.
And what's more, you can do that (and it is being done already as my example proves) WITHOUT making contracts in general illegal - which you correctly point out would be completely unfeasable. It is not that farfetched to imagine the state or government declare that clauses which restrict public domain material thus, that it becomes in essence non-public domain, are void. (And certainly when compared with the hypothetical situation they already agreed with abolishing copyright
I don't see how this is so difficult to accept, at least as a thought-exercise. Even now, you have laws that define the rights of fair use or free speech, for instance. Thus, say, a record company like the RIAA would let you sign a contract where it is explicitly mentionned you can not use your right of fair use or even prohibits any fair use at all, you would *still* have that right. That clause would simply be found legally void by the court.
So, all by all, there are examples enough to demonstrate that it would not be impossible for a state to declare that clauses which limit and restrict the use of public material, are void. But this whole hypothetical reasoning only comes into play if you go beyond the mere copyrights-issue, of course.
"The modified version in this hypothetical is not available to the public domain."
Ok, I let's make clear some points, or we'll just keep saying the same things. If there is no copyright (and for arguments sake, no other IP), and everything created falls into the public domain, then how is a derivative work not in the public domain? This does not make any sense. If I use material within the public domain today, and I make a modification, and I can't copyright it, then obviously, it falls within the public domain - whether or not it actually *IS* accessable to the public. the contractual limitations you speak about, do not change that. Other means exist too; I could, for instance, decide to keep my modified PD material for myself, thus making it impossible for the public to access it.
Neither changes the fact the works itself ARE under the publmic domain, if the law would say that is the default and no other copyright is possible.
"Copyright may be, at some level, controversial, and you might convince a government somewhere to eliminate copyright (as in our hypothetical here), but I doubt you can convince a government anywhere to eliminate either contracts or secrets, nor to make unenforceable the idea of a voluntarily entered contract where one party promises to keep a secret."
I even doubt, in any practical sense, that copyrights will ever be abolsihed, at least within this millenium. It's just too much entranched in our laws to be pragmatically possible to completely get rid of it in the near future. But, as I said, I'm not debating this issue, I'm debating the principles of the matter concerning the remark of the GPL and the implied worth that would show towards copyright.
But in the hypothetical context where no copyrights would exist, your last comment is not entirely to the point. It's not about convincing a government to *eliminate* all contracts, it is sufficient to limit the scope and extend of what is permited in those contracts. and clearly, that does not fall outside the possibility, since governments are already doing that. For prove of that, see my previous example:
"For instance, you can't contractually bind a customer to wave his rights to return a product within (in the case of my country) 14 days, even if he voluntarely signed a contract that says he did. This is because the law says you have that right as a customer, whatever the contract says, and thus, that clause automatically becomes void."
According to your theory, since the that customer has freely engaged himself and signed a contract when buying his product, that he can not return the product, there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
I mean, if he didn't like the provisions of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it, but since he did, he is forced to abide by them, right?
Wrong.
The law permits any customer to return a bought product within (in my case 14 days), even without giving a reason (with the exeption of food and the like, obviously).
Thus, it is more then clear some clauses of contractual obligations can be declared void - without eliminating the principle of contracts itself.
All this is disgressing from the main point, however, which was that GPL users use the GPL not because they are thrilled by the concept of copyright - or even find it useful on itself, but because we already live in a world where copyrights exist which limit the use of works. If copyrights were abolished, they would not need the GPL anymore, and contractual limitations and the question what clauses could be valid or not, have nothing to do with this debate, since those are independend from copyrights.
This is all besides the point. Copyrightlaw, as most IP laws, explicitly mentiones the fact that it is for a limited time, with the purpose of promoting innovation (new creations); this follows because people are (or at least were) aware that it is a trade-off between what benefits society as a whole and what benefits the creator as an incentive so he can create more works.
That balance has been shifted immer more towards that which only benefits the copyrightholders, thanks to their powerful lobbies (which mostly aren't the real creators anyway). Instead of a balance, it has become an unbalance, and this extra addition of making it last 100 years is yet another huge testimony to that. The term 'for a limited period' has become mere lipservice to those that would deny society it's rights that were originally given to it *within* the same copyrightlaw which the **AA&co are using to amass ever more money.
I refute the anglo-saxon neo-liberal ideology that claims the only worth lies in what financial profit it can bring to a few, regardless of the ramification to society. When such an ideology of 'limitless copyright' would have become true thousands of years ago, then after a while, you couldn't do diddly anymore. And yes, this is double true with patents, but copyright isn't exempt from it. If from the earliest times onwards, every meaningful combination starting with two notes would have been copyrighted, and the copyright would last for ever, then eventually, no music could be made anymore without infringing on hundreds of copyrighted combinations. (And this is not beyond the scope or possibility of copyright, because I remember that even a certain amount of *silence* between notes has been copyrighted already.)
And, mind you, the claim you make of 'You can perform them.' isn't even true (but if it were, then still no one could afford licence fees for hundreds of copyright-owners). In reality, it is completely dependend on the wishes of the copyright owner; if he decides you can't, then you can't. Thus, imagine the first person ever to come up with the combinative notes of do-re-mi and the likes, and having perpetual copyright... what would that have meant for music today?
A disaster, indeed.
Imagine our great literary works, such as those of shakespeare, which have been the source of numerous plays, teachings, movies, etc. still being copyrighted. And imagine one of his grand-grand-grand children decides no one can use it anymore (which would be his right)...can you imagine the loss to society?
Or can't you, and is that the real problem?
"They can still offer the program under contract protected by Trade Secret, requiring the end-user to keep the contents of the program confidential. (Sorry to effectively re-introduce Trade Secret, but it's relevant now that you've made this claim.)"
;-) The 'now that you've made this claim' is a bit silly, since 'no copyright whatsoever' already ( and inherently) includes the fact that one can't use copyright to lay possession of public domain material.
;-)
Hey, that's cheating! You explicitly stated you wanted to leave other IP out of it!
Ofcourse, if you DO bring in other IP, one might argue that other IP could be abolished too.
"Contract law is powerful enough to construct protection, since it is entered into voluntarily by customers."
Well, if contract law is strong enough, why do we need copyprotection for? Then, in effect, it would actually be feasable to abolish copyright, if I were to accept your claim!
But besides, this is only partly true. First of all, contract law is not absolute; it has it's limitations. For instance, you can't bind a customer to wave his rights to return a product within (in the case of my country) 14 days, even if he voluntarely signed a contract that says he did. This is because the law says you have that right as a customer, whatever the contract says, and thus, that clause automatically becomes void.
Thus, if a law would state that a customer has the right to use all public domain material (which would be the case for all copyrighted materials, if copyright is abolished) freely (as in speech), then contract law can't do diddly anymore.
While I have my own opinions about IP, in this case, I'm merely refuting your claim about the GPL and the worth of copyrights that this would imply. It should be clear however, that, viewed on it's own ('it' being copyright), when you do not have any copyright anymore, you don't need the GPL anymore. This is, when you leave out other limitations that restrict the free use of the material, obviously (as you did in your former post).
When one DOES bring other IP-laws into the picture, then obviously, one should deal with those too.
"The Public Domain does not prohibit inclusion of content into commercial programs."
Ah yes, but they couldn't protect it with copyright anymore, so their content/data would be public domain also, and thus, available to all. (I, too, am ignoring the trade secret and patent issue in this discussion).
Besides, the GPL does not prohibit commercial products neither, as you might be aware. So the difference does not lay in the right to make commercial products, the difference is about the freedom of use and the availability to others. Clearly, if no copyright would exist, and everything falls in the public domain, then everyone would have the freedom to use it.
"We are already paying for the protection of copyright."
Not really. All what I write is, in principle, copyprotected. I can assure you, I have never payed a dime for that protection, and neither has anyone else since the international agreement that copyright-owners don't have to register befor getting copyright anymore.
What you pay, is taxes on the income (if any) you derive from that property, but the property itself is not taxed. That like paying taxes on what your houses or other property brings in financial wise, but not paying any taxes on the houses/property itself. I don't know how it is in your country, but here we have to pay just because we *own* the house. If IP *is* property, as is always claimed by the **AA, then it should be dealt with accordingly, just as other property.
"That is one of the things our taxes go for. And regardless of that, what most people on here are advocating is taking away someone's rights."
To some extend this is true, but I fail to see why IP should be exempt. ALL taxes take away someone's rights, namely the right to own property, or to earn money, without having to pay the state. But then again, this is part of living in a society.
"That is like saying "If you do not pay property taxes, anyone can come up and steal your house at any time.""
Well, I doubt the "anyone", but if that is your main objection, then I would say: make it the job of the state (only), just as with other property. I suppose in that case, you don't have any objections anymore? After all, that's no different then what is current practise in society right now. Sure, you can see it as stealing by the state, but then again, if you don't pay your taxes on your houses/property, the state will, indeed, 'steal' your house.
I still have to see the first logical and compelling argument why it would be impossible to argue that IP should be taxed. If the premise that IP IS property is correct, and seen the fact that property (and I mean not only the revenue of that property, but often the property itself) is almost in every country taxed in some way, then the logical conclusion is rather that IP should be taxed too.
"Even the many GPL'ers here at Slashdot should understand this concept, since GPL'd software (sometimes erroneously called "free" software) is anything but freely given. It is given with strings attached--shared, but in point of fact, not given. This is the precise bargain that copyright sought to achieve. I might even question the virtue of the GPL, but I won't question the sheer volume of it. So I must conclude that the qualified bargain it seeks to achieve is natural to a lot of people."
I do not think that last claim is substantiated (if by 'people' you mean those that use the GPL). In all honesty, we all know why GPL-users use copyright (or -left, if you want), and it's not because they are convinced of its intrinsical worth, nor because they all regard it as 'natural'. It's mostly for a pragmatically reason: we *do* live in a world full of copyright, after all, and thus, this is the only way they see for keeping their works free.
If *NO* copyrights whatsoever would exist, then clearly, there would be no need for the GPL.
So, at best your conclusion is doubtful: it is rather more likely that people using the GPL do not see it as a qualified bargain, but rather as a necessary evil.
"The tax rate is incredibly high already, we are paying for every service we recieve and more."
Well, yes...so why should intellectual property be exempt? If it is considered property, it should be able to be taxed like all other property.
"The idea we should have to pay even more to have some right protected is patentedly absurd."
Not really, for the reason I mentioned above. In fact, it would be nothing then reasonable. And while I agree with you we already pay to much taxes, it still not valididates the the exemption for taxes of IP.
"Why not specificaly tax the protection of potatos? Or rutabagas? Maybe we should tax computer ownership?"
Before you can own a computer, you already pay taxes on it. Copyright is now being extended in such an absurd way, that even children and grandchildren can profit from the 'property' of their parents. Do you know of any other hereditary property where taxes don't have to be payed? If IP *IS* property (as the RIAA & co claims), then it should be subjected to everthing all the other property is subjected to.
One could, with the same validity, claim it would be equally fair to revert the extensions, so that all sectors have the same rule.
;-)
Which would make the extension as being unfair, and not the fact that others don't follow in their footsteps.
While I agree there are certainly worthwhile elements in the EU constitution, I would vote 'no' (if my country hadn't withdrawn a promised referendum on the matter), because it fails to do what it should do: make sure that the EU *IS* a democracy.
It's not about ambitious integration, it's about not integrating enough, in a democratic way. The only part in the whole EU that represents directly the 'populace' is the EU parliament. But, while they get some marginal more power as lipservice, the EC (by any other name) is still the one that makes the law. And, I should remind you, that the EC is a bunch of unelected beaurocrats, who do not represent the people, aren't voted by them into office, and don't have any political responsability towards the EU citizens. Yet, they decide on creating laws that could affect millions of those same EU citizens. Does that strike you as fair, or even reasonable? Not to me. To me, it's complete idiotic and utterly undemocratic. In comparison, the EC ALOS got more power, even more so then the EU, which, in total makes things worse instead of better, in the light of becomming a true democracy.
What one should have done is to abolish the EC and the counsel of ministers, whome both are not voted into the positions they have by the populace - unless by far proxy, but that's no proper way of being democratic. Replace them by a senate, and by a directly voted EU president. And make very clear that cultural/moral/ethical/etc subjects stay a matter of soevereign countries; we don't want a one-taste-for-all blending, after all. So keep the petty regulations about stuff the EU shouldn't mess with away, and concentrate on those things that really DO matter; like forming a united front in matters of foreign diplomacy and the military.
Instead, the current trend of the EU is just the oposite: less democracy, more bureaucrats, more meddling in internal affairs, and remaining weak at just the points we should strive to be stronger.
I'm involved in free distribution of text too (http://www.verbumvanum.org/ and I'm utterly amazed at the attitude even so-called 'non-profit' orgs have.
The whole goddamn IP thing should be abolished, I say. True, copyrights are less worse then patents, but still; it's just not of these times anymore. Just as the feodal system didn't work anymore in the industrial age, so doesn't IP work anymore in the cyberage.
In any case, if the authors gave permission, or, if it is in the public domain (which in first instance would be the case, since they'll start with pre-1920 books, as I've understood), then what the f- are they complaining about.
Maybe they earned money distributing books that were in the public domain? Well, heck, though then. I mean, what, we aren't here to subsidise non-profits, after all, and while I understand they're complaining from their view, it's a free market, after all.
I've been wondering, btw. Why didn't anyone come up with the idea to make one giant liberary, with a system that 'lends' ebooks? After three weeks it can't be used anymore, and it becomes available in the lib repository again. That way, it'll EXACTLY work like a regular lib, bypassing all the 'but they copy my work' whiners.
The longer this crap continues, the longer I'm thinking society should move on, and stimulate a sort of mass-online patronage, or an improved flatfee thingy, like we already have now on many 'blanc' copymedia. This way, we would prevent all those lonesome, poor, starving musicians from a terrible hunger-death, and people could do what they already are doing, but then legal.
The current system has become obsolete; people that don't get that yet, are worse off then Don Quichotte.
"I agree with the notion that Newsbyte is a troll and not worth listening to."
;-)
Obviously, I disagree.
But, even if I *were* a troll, it still doesn't say anything about the arguments I raised. I mean, how can one value the worth of what has been said the best? By giving arguments and examples, or by shrugging it of as being 'trollish'?
"It turned into a project all its own, with very different design goals, but with the same philosophy of providing an anonymizing network. And his network actually works."
Weird. This is almost the same I pointed out on my blog too. So maybe you are saying the same things as a troll? And if so, maybe that troll is right about other things as well?
As I expected, I'm getting viled and praised at the same time. Some call me courageous, some call me a troll.
Well, I don't care either way, as long as people give valid arguments for why my claims in my post are untrue. Alas, few who refute what I say by claiming I'm a troll even try. But, of course, even if I *was* a troll, then still it says nothing about the arguments I made. The tactic of depicting the speaker as an idiot, troll, etc, and thus what he says as being untrue neither, is a well known falacy.
I find it humorous that Ian, in this slasdot thread, says I'm a troll because 'look; he's never provided one line of code to Freenet'...which proves to me he didn't even do the trouble of reading my blog, because that's exactly what I point out in my blog: if you aren't a coder, and don't contribute code, one isn't worth much in the eyes of Ian, whatever one may have done in support as a non-coder.
So, I'm a troll because I've never provided code and I dare to criticise? Wow. Even now, he doesn't see where the problem lies, instead he portrays exactly the attitude that I describe. But still, while I have troubles with the way he manages Freenet, I still think he has had (and still has) some good ideas - something which is important too. I could call him a 'troll' as well, and thus shrug off everything he says, but I'd rather see arguments, especially about the topics that I've raised. But, chances are, I'll be waiting for a very long time; it's much easier to call me a troll, after all.
That said, my opinion of Freenet, as a concept, is still high. People should not make a mistake about that; being all for free speech, I can't else then see any way of making it possible for all people to speak their mind unafraid as something unbelievable valuable. So, it's not Freenet itself that I have a problem with, it's the current way in which it is managed and developed - and I don't say that just out of the blue; I argument it and give examples of it on my blog.
As yet, 'troll' is the most advanced reply I received from the founder. I don't know: maybe I was the wrong person to tell this. Clearly, his bias towards me prevents him from arguing rationally about the points I brought up.
It's true, that sometimes, my blog is a bit harsh, but then again, after seeing and experiencing several years of people being ignored because they are no coders, one gets a bit annoyed by it.
Anyway, maybe Freenet WILL go in the right direction, perhaps... or maybe it will be surpassed by systems like I2P. But, I can bet one thing: its succes or failure won't be determined just by the code.
"yet hasn't actually contributed a single line of code to the project in his several years of trolling the mailing lists."
Well, duh. Did I say something else, ever? That's just the point of what I say on my blog: people that don't offer code, are not much then trolls in your eyes.
"As for the blog entry he links to, it essentially boils down to whining about why we don't implement each and every one of his suggestions."
Hmmm... First of all, it's not merely 'my' suggestions: many of them were suggested by others too. And secondly, it's not about 'each and every one'; not even *one* of all the suggestions I listed on my blog has been implemented.
If you're going to argument about my motives, at least use facts, not generalisations based on bias.
"We can agree to disagree, but that's my viewpoint."
Certainly, as long as we also agree the courts don't agree with you, so you have no legal basis for your claim, and as long, thus, as you acknowledge my reasoning is not a 'rationalisatio of theft' (unless you would argue the courts rationalise theft too).
"What I have a problem with is that some people still choose to steal from those who have choosen NOT to offer their wares for free."
Maybe they don't regard it as stealing? (I thought we've been debating exatly this for numerous posts, now). Even if you do not agree with their viewpoint, at least you must realise by now that THEY (and possibly the courts) might not see it as stealing, and thus have not the moral objections about it that you do?
"That's why I view most of these arguments as nothing more than massive rationalization."
Well, frankly, you'd be better of by using the term 'copyrightinfringement' instead of stealing, then. at least the courts would agree with you then (in most cases).
"And if you think it's okay to rip people off and disregard their wishes, then we grew up in very different moral climates."
That is possible. At least we differ enough in moral climate to disagree about looking at it as 'stealing'. Ofcourse, as I said, legally I can't support the copyrightinfringements that some downloaders do, but the truth be told, it doesn't keep me awake at night neither. I think, in matters of morality, there are far, far more important issues in the world then copyright-infringement.
And, ultimately, 'moral climates' change: what was deemed morally wrong or right 100 years ago, may be reversed today. Maybe, if this sort of IP-infringements continue on a massive scale, sooner or later, one will come to the conclusion that IP laws should better be scrapped, in which case those downloaders wouldn't even be morally wrong.
Of cpourse, this is speculation, but remains a possibilty nevertheless. In any case, even in the current moral climate, I don't see it as stealing, and I'm not lying awake of copyright-infringements. I don't know who's more in line with the actual existing moral climate, frankly.
"Maybe this assumption is false, in which case I do not support shorter time limits."
:-)
At least you remain consistent, which I appreciate on itself.
"I believe my earlier argument constitutes adequate proof that copyright is beneficial."
An argumentation does not constitutes proof (neither does mine, ofcourse). I'm sure your argumentation and conclusion seems obvious and logical to you, just as scientists find the theory they propose logical and they have arguments for it. yet, many theories turn out to be false nevertheless.
For instance, I already have explained that I do not consider the fact that people who earn lots of money automatically will invest more in R&D. As at least has shown with patents (and copyright may not be excluded in this area), this is not always the case, and it turns out (at least with patents) that a large part of the IP earnings are redirected from R1D towards the legal departementts (just because of their and others IP). Nothing indicates that copyright doesn't contribute to this neither.
Now, you can disagree with that, and give arguments why you think this is not he case, but you haven't proven that this isn't the case.
Also, even when you would be right that it is economical beneficial, the question remains for whome. For the copyrightholder, probably yes. For society as a whole, this is less clear, since, as I said, one restricts the freedoms of many. Thus, 'beneficial' is dependent on how much one values those freedoms, how much one finds those restrictions annoying or unwarranted, and how much, society (and thus, to the individuals within that society) gets value back. If one could demonstrate that music etc. would dissapear if no IP would exist, this would be obvious. But, seen the history, this seems rather unlikely. You claim the benefits are because we get more and better products, but I disagree. There are myriads of free software/music/etc. available that, at least in my opinion, are equal or surpass the quality of proprietary software/music/etc.
In any case, you have not *proven* that this isn't the case, therefor, you have not proven it is, actually, beneficial, ergo; IP should not be introduced, nor remain (since it was a change) untill your theory as well as the beneficial nature has not been proven.
I mean, let's be honest: if your argumentation about the beneficiality of copyright is enough to constitute proof, then so is mine. What *really* constitute proof, I'm sure we agree, is thourough and independend scientific research of the matter. This has not be done, so while different sides may argue differently, the fact remains it has not been proven one way or another, and since you agree no changes should be made before something is proven, the conclusion one should make is rather clear-cut.
"Not argument, but a comment. I think the real problem at the moment is, to continue the analogy, you CAN'T copy bread. Or housing. Or cars. Or clothes."
;-)
;-).
Yes, you can, only it takes a great deal of effort and cost. But, as I said, the effort one has done or does, has no bearing on the question whether or not it is stealing.
Say, someone builds a nice house, and you say: damn, I want the same house! And you take the same architect and build it. It costs lots of money and time, for sure. But at the end, you have a copy of your neighbours' house. Then what? According to you, this would be stealing, but you know as well as I that the first owner can't accuse the other of stealing his house. And no court would follow that reasoning neither.
So people CAN copy other products, it's ust a matter of time and effort...but it still wouldn't mean it's theft if they found a way of copying things more easily. Example: if the copy of that house was made faster and cheaper then that of the first owner, would that owner *then* be able to say the other stole his house? I don't think so.
And if that first owner would be able to copy easily other stuff of the latter, would it then be OK? Because that's something else that bothers me with your comment: sure, it is true musicians (and people in general) can't copy goods with the same ease as they can music/etc. But if it is truelly stealing, as you say, what does that matter? Are you saying that if everyone can 'steal' with the same ease, it is not longer 'stealing'? If the ease by which you steal is the measurement of stealing, then stealing bycicles in amsterdam, or stealing apples from a shop that offers them in front of the shop is not stealing.
But then again, maybe the point of 'stealing' has been dropped by you, because I don't see it mentionned anywhere anymore in your post. As I said, even courts don't agree with your premise that copying is stealing, so it can't be shrugged of by saying it's simply me, 'rationalising theft'.
"In that case those who would produce such things must be independently wealthy, do it as a hobby, beg, or hope they find a patron. None of which strike me as particularly great options, especially if the rest of us, as mentioned before, still want all of those games, books, movies, and music."
Indeed, you sum up the possibilites quit nice altough you forgot some as well (musicians could make a living by live performances, for instance, just as the majority does now, and coders could go working for a corp that makes tailored software, just as most do now) And also, modern technologies will allow better variations on the ways you mentionned.
Do I claim everyone will be able to gain his bread that way? Nope. Only the capable or succesful or popular ones will be able to - much as it is today, btw. Exept that being capable isn't much of a requirement anymore, these days in the music-industry
Will it be possible for some exeptions (mostly corps) to become insanely rich, thanks to their IP, while what they gain is not really in comparison with the effort they have made (which is quite possible with IP)? Nope. But I don't think that this should be a goal of society neither, so I have no problem with it.
"My three points were meant only to argue that copyright improves the quantity and quality of available information."
And you go on to say a shorter time limit would not make much difference; but this does not follow from your points, nor is it the logical conclusion to make from them.
If more money = harder work = more quantity&quality of products&services, as you claim, then obviously, a company can gain more money when their IP offers them money for a longer time. Arguing for a shorter time doesn't make much sense, in that case - unless one agrees the theory of those 3 points are an (over)simplification, as I said earlier.
"I believe this tradeoff is well worth it. You apparently don't. I guess that's what it comes down to."
Not quite. If there is *proof* that copyright is (more) beneficial to society then it costs them, I'm prepared to accept it. However, I'm of the same opinion as you: if a change is made it has the burden of proof to show it actually does benefit society.
I mean, we do agree on this, I suppose, since you yourself said no change should be made without proof it is beneficial? When (the various forms) of IP were introduced, was it proven that it was beneficial? And weren't they introduced with as reason they would promote innovation (literally stated in the USA, I believe)? Does it not follow that they have to prove it did/does? In fact, shouldn't they prove it every goddamn time they change the IP laws to introduce longer terms or more restrictions or what not?
But has that been done, and do they do it now? No.
Thus, the IP laws don't deserve the place they have, because not one single time has the introduction of it been *proven* to be beneficial - not afterwards, and certainly not at front. If you abide by your own statement that you can't introduce a change before it has proven to be beneficial, then certainly you must agree that IP don't fit the bill of that premise.
While I understand the sentiment, and for sure, it's never pleasant to go out of business, it still not validates the claims.
The bakery goes out of business, and what then? Well, one could copy the copy then (provided there is no loss in the copying). But regardless, even when it goes out of business, the point I make is, that they couldn't make a case that the person making a copy of their bread and eating that copy, was stealing it.
As for going bust; that may happen to your company, or to the bakery, and to a myriad other businesses, just as has happend in the past to whole industries. Technology and society changes, and those industries that can't cope with it, or are not flexible enough to change, or are made obsolete... dissapear. It sounds harsh, but this has always been the case, and it will always be so.
This is true for any business, however big it may be. The RIAA too, no doubt, will have to change their ways, or face extinction. One can lament that, but then again, those that complain about it don't use obsolete technology or products just to keep old industries or businessmodels alive neither, I presume.
And everytime it happend, those induistries claimed it would be desastrous, and that people would fall without jobs and wouldn't be able to feed their families and that the end was near... and for them, in a certain sense, it was. But every time, people just got other jobs, society adapted just fine and new industries or businessmodels replaced the old ones. It is hard for the people involved, and freightening for those that are used to gather money in an established way - but in a broader context, it's just life in a dynamic macro-economic sense.
"I have not used the term "IP" anywhere in this thread. Only "copyright". You were the one that introduced the term "IP"."
I stand corrected. I'm sorry; I'm in the middle of the same kind of argument with another poster on slashdot that did use the term, and aparently I got you two mixed up.
As I said, copyrights do not have the same monopoly-tendencies as do patents, agreed.
"This is the argument of someone who has no supporting evidence."
LOL. As opposed to you, who has? Can you show me it? In fact, their is supported evidence, as you are well aware by now, at least for patents. There have been very few researchpapers that only handle copyright however, so there I - indeed -don't have supporting evidence.
"Of course, if I wanted to use the same argument, I would argue that since you are the one advocating a major paradigm shift, you must demonstrate why it would be a good idea."
Indeed, and if IP was originaly the way things were, then you would be right. If you take the current situation on itself, and you claim any change to that needs additional argumentation, then you would be correct also. However, let's be honest; we both know it was not the original way, and that IP was introduced, exactly *because* it was supposed to promote innovation. So, if one is honest, the only logical conclusion is, that it is for *those* to prove it actually does what it was supposed to do.
"The current system seems to be working acceptably, so it would be foolish to try undoing it without firm evidence that it will improve things."
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. I don't think it works acceptable at all; I think it sucks. Moreover, in regard to patents, I'm supported by independend research. Also, your reasoning seems rather hypocrite or using a double-standard. If we may not change the system without firm evidence that it will improve things, then why did it already change (by introducing IP) without firm evidence that it would improve things? I agree fullheartedly with your argument, here! But just apply it consistently, to every change.
"Please re-read what I said. I specifically said that competition must exist."
Which IP prevents. If you are speaking solely about copyright, you may have a point, however. Yet, still, it can't be said it is automatically the case: investing in R&D can aumount to novel prodcuts, yes, but it also invloves a risk (that it won't pay of). The market isn't THAT predictable, after all. So, sometimes, an individual or a company may prefer to amass money, without really investing in new things. I would agree that those companies at the end will wither and die, however. Then again, many companies have gone exactly that way.
In any case, you make a good point that getting rid of copyright (specifically) is not the way to fix monopolies.
If you are speaking only about copyrights, then I agree that much of the counterarguments about stae-backed monopolies are not valid. But, as I said, it still imposes restrictons on the freedoms of others, so, IMHO, it still has to prove it is worth those restrictions (and not vice versa; that those being restricted have to prove that it isn't beneficial).
Clearly, copyrights are not regarded as being inherently beneficial (despite the 'obviousness' of your theory), otherwise they wouldn't be limited in time. If only your 3 points would matter, then there is no reason to set any time-limit on it. But in reality, we ALL know it's a trade-off; that is why the laws restrict copyright and all other IP. The difference is, I am oàf the opinion that it should first be proven that the trade-off is beneficial (exactly the same argument you made, actually, for making a change to it).
I doubt that this will be possible for patents, unless in very specific circumstances. Maybe some form of copyright might be more beneficial to society then it costs us, but still - just as you claimed - it should be proven to be the case.
"No, the value was added when the people spent their time, effort, and dollars creating the work."
This does not contradict what I just said. Certainly, things can have value, and those things can be 'taken'. My first point was merely to counter your claim that it is not something that has value per se, that can be taken. I would think this is rather obvious. I didn't say music can not have value for those that 'take' it, however.
"Again, the point is that if the work had no value, it would not be stolen, or taken, or copied, or whatever word you use to rationalize the process."
I prefer to use copied, as you may have gathered. As a generalisation, your statement is simply not true, at least not in every case. Systems like Indy, for example, chose the songs without the user actually chosing them, thus, the user has no idea if and how much value it has. (Indy works with independend music, but the principle rests the same if it weren't). Or say, someone downloads a song he doesn't know and never heard of: the 'value' is unknown to him. It may turn out that it has no value (for him) and that he deletes it afterwards. People do not 'aquire' stuff because of the value others put in, but because of the value they give it, or perceive it to be.
But your whole argument escapes me. If you want to point out that it is copyright infringement, then I already agreed to it in my first post. I just point out that copying is not stealing, for the simple reason that the original owners still own their product. I already gave two times the example of an analogy with physical objects, such as your chair, or bread you baked: if it were possible to copy those, and I used those copies, you might argue I infringed on patents (if you had any on them), but you wouldn't be able to say I stole them, regardless of how much work and time you spend on them. You have ignored this already two times, for the simple reason (I presume), you see I am right.
Furthermore, you also don't have legal standing, because even according to the law, copyright infringement and stealing is not the same, and judges have already reprimanded RIAA-lawyers who equalled the two terms (in just the same manner as you do). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringemen t
Thus, my 'rationalisation' seems to be the same as those of the courts in the USA (and in my country too, btw). Maybe it should occur to you, that my 'rationalisations' are, in effect, rational and correct, while your argumentation why it is the same as stealing is biased and bogus.
"Debated back and forth ad nauseum. Since you said "many" that means that some would. Personally, I think that "many" would if they had no other choice."
Of course some would. That's exactly what I said. The point is, if *some* would, some wouldn't. Therefor, the RIAA can not use that in a blanket way; they have to prove they actually lost something. They usually try to do this by stating that they lose the money they otherwise would have gotten, but this can't be used as default, because only with *some* would they have lost money. So, even when one would accept this weak argument, they should prove that they lost money in that individual case by the copying of the person they sued.
"1) That the U.S. Government and business are not going to repeal copyright and patent law. To think otherwise at this stage of the game is wishful thinking. There may or may not, however, be some level of reform (e.g. software patents)."
Agreed, at least in the forseeable future. I'm not even optimistic about any reform (in a substantial positive way). I was explaining the principle 'wrongness' of IP, and the claim that it is stealing, not the fact that governements would have to wisdom to implement what would be suited for our current cyberage. Basically, they keep hanging on to IP rules and laws that made sense in 200 years ago, even when our society has drastically changed sinc