The only way to equalize this imbalance is with a financial cost. You may not agree with the size of the statuatory (sic) penalty, but it's hard to disagree with the idea that there should be some punishment.
Is anyone really advocating no penalty?
I'd think it'd be fair for the uploader to pay for making an upload to another person. Let's say $25 even if they upload even a small amount. Then, of course, there needs to be some deterrent. So we'll double it.
I think $50 per unauthorized copy is plenty fair. Especially when, under current law, they can double dip by going after the downloader as well. It's on the RIAA to figure out how many copies were made. Contrary to certain idiot judges' opinions, "making available" a work isn't anymore infringement than making available a book at the library is infringement on the part of the library.
Next time you want to sell CDs on the sidewalk in $LARGE_CITY, make sure they're stolen copies rather than bootlegs. Your monetary penalty will be much less. You're looking at jail time for passing stolen merchandise, but that's criminal court so you get a free lawyer and the burden of proof is higher.
Congress approved the penalties when copying works could not be done very cheaply. Therefore, non-commercial copyright infringement was almost non-existent. When it did happen, it was on a very small scale. I'm sure some MSTies here recall the tape trading of MST3K episodes. I wouldn't be surprised if that was about as big as copyright infringement got before the Internet became popular.
The statutory damages assumed that all infringement was for a commercial purpose. Congress basically had to assign a dollar value to how much they thought copyright was worth. Since almost all of it was for commercial purposes they aimed a bit high. At least, that is the best I can gather. Perhaps a copyright lawyer will come by and put me in my place.
There is a case that challenges the constitutionality of such high fines. I believe our very own NewYorkCountryLaywer (912032) is counsel for the defendants.
One thing you point out is paramount. Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.
Another interesting thing is that, averaged out, this adds up to $9250 per infringement. At that price the defendant could have physically stolen about 600 copies of each work (assuming around $15 per work). So it pays to remember that the fines for physically stealing copyrighted works are much less than infringing on them.
I'd be semi-interested in coming to any number of these, but I really hate being around alcohol and people I don't know...
What is on the agenda for the Cleveland party that'll change my mind? I hope it'll be more than sitting around making Soviet Russia, Naked and Petrified, and Profit!!! jokes.
If you ever work on Mono, could the fact that you have looked at Microsoft's source become some basis for a lawsuit?
Looking at a copyrighted work and then making a similar copyrighted work is completely legal. Otherwise, any of us who watched a James Bond movie would not be able to make our own spy movies. Copyrights aren't patents. Copyright infringement only occurs when you copy works you don't have the rights to copy. Think of looking at the source and then making your own version an analog to "putting it in your own words" like you had to do in secondary school with book reports and the like.
That was in the theoretical world. In the real world, looking at the source and then using that to get implementation ideas is a good way to get sued. Yeah, you probably would have a really good case that you didn't actually copy any Microsoft code into Mono, but the suit itself might bankrupt you. For instance, look at ReactOS. I'll bet they have a completely clean implementation (in that no one working on the project has seen any of the source) of the Win32 API, even though it isn't strictly necessary. This is simply to avoid legal problems.
The OTR plugin for Pidgin works well. Yeah, it probably wasn't what you were looking for, but it fits. It has perfect forward secrecy and deniable authentication (no way to prove you sent a message to someone).
I *highly* doubt that makes such permissive licenses GPLv3 incompatible simply because any number of lawyers who were present during the draft process would have noticed such a glaring error.
I didn't find anyone else in a rudimentary google search who pointed this out, so I'm betting you're probably wrong here. I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it's very unlikely this is the correct interpretation of the license.
It all depends on what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. Certainly statically linking would constitute a derivative work. Dynamically linking is a grey area. RMS et al. say it does constitute a derivative work. Others don't. No one is "right" until it is settled in court.
X.org uses the MIT license, which is permissive and compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. If you mean XFree86, that is GPLv2 incompatible and GPLv3 compatible. I've not seen anything that would make the MIT license incompatible with GPLv3.
Based on your goals, I'd suggest making your code GPLv2 only. GPLv2 only is incompatible with GPLv3.
My point was that all these projects can be counted as GPLv3 projects, or is it that important that I formally fork such a project to be counted in the numbers?
True, but lets say I'm just out to make a few dollars. I just repackage some FOSS software and sell it for $20. If I sell 100 copies of X, I've made $2000. Someone figures out that I'm violating the license, so all I do is release the source and then move on to another piece of software.
The 9th amendment only states that singling out specific rights in the previous amendments shouldn't be taken to mean those are the only ones you have.
I know what the Laffer curve is. I will remind you that it is just a theory and no one has any conclusive evidence that tax revenue actually works that way.
That isn't to say that tax revenue won't be a concave down function with respect to income tax rates. 0% obviously nets 0 revenue, but 100% doesn't net 0 revenue. All I'm saying is that we don't know on what side of the curve we are on, if it is a quadratic function, or anything much else about the middle. I have a feeling the maxima is a lot higher than it's proponents believe.
Even then, the laffer curve is actually designed to maximize tax revenue. This puts it at odds with the standard Republican line (starve the beast) on how to best reduce government spending. Republicans have almost certainly been using "starve the beast" as their strategy since 2001.
I prefer limiting the federal government to it's constitutional prerogatives myself, but I'm smart enough to know that high taxes and high spending is preferable to low taxes and high spending.
I completely understand that in practice, the monarch is essentially a figurehead. I just put a large price on theoretical constraints and the like.
For instance, to vote in a primary election in Ohio you must affirm that you support the party in question. Similarly to sign a petition to start a new party, you must affirm you will support the party in question. No one really gives a damn if you cross over and vote in another party's primary. I do.
I don't take oaths lightly, especially an oath that theoretically places me under the dominion of someone else.
But don't forget the VAT. As I understand it most European countries have a VAT which isn't quoted separately from the price of the item. In the US, our sales taxes are added in after the purchase price. At the point of sale, that $669 item is about $700.
That doesn't make up for the large discrepancy, but it's not as bad as you think.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think it'd be fair for the uploader to pay for making an upload to another person. Let's say $25 even if they upload even a small amount. Then, of course, there needs to be some deterrent. So we'll double it.
I think $50 per unauthorized copy is plenty fair. Especially when, under current law, they can double dip by going after the downloader as well. It's on the RIAA to figure out how many copies were made. Contrary to certain idiot judges' opinions, "making available" a work isn't anymore infringement than making available a book at the library is infringement on the part of the library.
I was calling you out in a roundabout way...
Thanks for the info.
Granted.
Next time you want to sell CDs on the sidewalk in $LARGE_CITY, make sure they're stolen copies rather than bootlegs. Your monetary penalty will be much less. You're looking at jail time for passing stolen merchandise, but that's criminal court so you get a free lawyer and the burden of proof is higher.
It doesn't in this context.
Congress approved the penalties when copying works could not be done very cheaply. Therefore, non-commercial copyright infringement was almost non-existent. When it did happen, it was on a very small scale. I'm sure some MSTies here recall the tape trading of MST3K episodes. I wouldn't be surprised if that was about as big as copyright infringement got before the Internet became popular.
The statutory damages assumed that all infringement was for a commercial purpose. Congress basically had to assign a dollar value to how much they thought copyright was worth. Since almost all of it was for commercial purposes they aimed a bit high.
At least, that is the best I can gather. Perhaps a copyright lawyer will come by and put me in my place.
Actually, I'm engaged.
;-)
Perhaps I can describe to you guys what sex with a woman is like.
There is a case that challenges the constitutionality of such high fines. I believe our very own NewYorkCountryLaywer (912032) is counsel for the defendants.
One thing you point out is paramount. Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.
Another interesting thing is that, averaged out, this adds up to $9250 per infringement. At that price the defendant could have physically stolen about 600 copies of each work (assuming around $15 per work). So it pays to remember that the fines for physically stealing copyrighted works are much less than infringing on them.
I'd be semi-interested in coming to any number of these, but I really hate being around alcohol and people I don't know...
What is on the agenda for the Cleveland party that'll change my mind? I hope it'll be more than sitting around making Soviet Russia, Naked and Petrified, and Profit!!! jokes.
That was in the theoretical world. In the real world, looking at the source and then using that to get implementation ideas is a good way to get sued. Yeah, you probably would have a really good case that you didn't actually copy any Microsoft code into Mono, but the suit itself might bankrupt you. For instance, look at ReactOS. I'll bet they have a completely clean implementation (in that no one working on the project has seen any of the source) of the Win32 API, even though it isn't strictly necessary. This is simply to avoid legal problems.
The OTR plugin for Pidgin works well. Yeah, it probably wasn't what you were looking for, but it fits. It has perfect forward secrecy and deniable authentication (no way to prove you sent a message to someone).
It's a theory.
I *highly* doubt that makes such permissive licenses GPLv3 incompatible simply because any number of lawyers who were present during the draft process would have noticed such a glaring error.
I didn't find anyone else in a rudimentary google search who pointed this out, so I'm betting you're probably wrong here. I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it's very unlikely this is the correct interpretation of the license.
It all depends on what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. Certainly statically linking would constitute a derivative work. Dynamically linking is a grey area. RMS et al. say it does constitute a derivative work. Others don't. No one is "right" until it is settled in court.
X.org uses the MIT license, which is permissive and compatible with both GPLv2 and GPLv3. If you mean XFree86, that is GPLv2 incompatible and GPLv3 compatible. I've not seen anything that would make the MIT license incompatible with GPLv3.
Based on your goals, I'd suggest making your code GPLv2 only. GPLv2 only is incompatible with GPLv3.
The 1950s called. They want their scapegoat back.
Touche.
Obviously.
My point was that all these projects can be counted as GPLv3 projects, or is it that important that I formally fork such a project to be counted in the numbers?
Not to mention any project with files licensed under GPLv2 or later is, for all intents and purposes, GPLv3 anyway.
True, but lets say I'm just out to make a few dollars. I just repackage some FOSS software and sell it for $20. If I sell 100 copies of X, I've made $2000. Someone figures out that I'm violating the license, so all I do is release the source and then move on to another piece of software.
No, actually it's a hard 's' from where I come from (Midwestern US).
Je parle francais un peu:
Je m'appelle stinerman. J'aime l'hockey. Je voudrais un crepe!
(It's been awhile since high school french, but I didn't do half bad...)
The 9th amendment only states that singling out specific rights in the previous amendments shouldn't be taken to mean those are the only ones you have.
I know what the Laffer curve is. I will remind you that it is just a theory and no one has any conclusive evidence that tax revenue actually works that way.
That isn't to say that tax revenue won't be a concave down function with respect to income tax rates. 0% obviously nets 0 revenue, but 100% doesn't net 0 revenue. All I'm saying is that we don't know on what side of the curve we are on, if it is a quadratic function, or anything much else about the middle. I have a feeling the maxima is a lot higher than it's proponents believe.
Even then, the laffer curve is actually designed to maximize tax revenue. This puts it at odds with the standard Republican line (starve the beast) on how to best reduce government spending. Republicans have almost certainly been using "starve the beast" as their strategy since 2001.
I prefer limiting the federal government to it's constitutional prerogatives myself, but I'm smart enough to know that high taxes and high spending is preferable to low taxes and high spending.
I completely understand that in practice, the monarch is essentially a figurehead. I just put a large price on theoretical constraints and the like.
For instance, to vote in a primary election in Ohio you must affirm that you support the party in question. Similarly to sign a petition to start a new party, you must affirm you will support the party in question. No one really gives a damn if you cross over and vote in another party's primary. I do.
I don't take oaths lightly, especially an oath that theoretically places me under the dominion of someone else.
But don't forget the VAT. As I understand it most European countries have a VAT which isn't quoted separately from the price of the item. In the US, our sales taxes are added in after the purchase price. At the point of sale, that $669 item is about $700.
That doesn't make up for the large discrepancy, but it's not as bad as you think.