Yes, the "I'll sell you a copy of a software product" business model disappears (as the copyright abolitionists appear to desire) and is replaced by "I'll sell you this appliance which uses software" or "I'll sell you this online service which uses software" (or a combo of the two). A variety of non-copyright lock-in mechanisms (probably mostly dependent on market clout) can then be applied to ensure the happy consumer keeps paying for their product.
Whilst the abolitionists are clearly hoping for a world where everything is free, the unfortunate truth is that it still costs the same amount of money to write software/record music etc, which we're all still going to be paying as eventual consumers.
You only hold the copyright over the parts of the work you created.
Yes, which means no-one can reproduce the anthology in its entirety without my permission. I never claimed that I suddenly owned copyright on Shakespeare's plays, but I do own copyright on all the 'ownable' components of the anthology. You cannot photocopy my anthology & sell it to others, notwithstanding it's been derived from works in the public domain.
However, you said:
With the GPL or the Public Domain, the people who improved and distributed the code would not be able to stop the original authors or anybody from having the right to use the modifications
This is incorrect - you have no right to 'use' (I assume you mean 'copy/modify/distribute') my annotations to Shakespeare by virtue of the actual plays being in the public domain. You do under the GPL as I've implicitly granted you that right by agreeing to the license.
I don't have a better solution than the current one, with a few tweaks to restore balance. I certainly don't think that 'abolish copyright' is a smart option, even if it were remotely feasible. I suspect most abolitionists can't look past the obvious copyright abuses to recognise the significant benefits this mechanism gives us.
I'm still not convinced that replacing copyright laws with new laws enabling an author to "apply conditions on the distribution of the work and to have his authorship recognized" qualifies as copyright abolition - it sounds to me more like (radical) copyright reform. Effectively it would be like saying: "copyright still exists, as long as it's just used to enforce the GPL".
Without copyright I can literally disassemble your code and use the output in my program.
...unless use is restricted to signed binaries on locked hardware. All of a sudden there's none of the GPL v3 protection, because there's no copyright, so I can happily take your community built code, improve it, make a billion dollars and/or become famous but not give you squat in return.
Law of unintended consequences, people - if there's no copyright, industries that depend upon it for a living are going to need to find another way to make money, and it's probably not going to be one that you'll like.
I'm obviously having difficulty reading, as I'm struggling to make sense of your post. Are you saying that it's not possible to own copyright on a work derived from an item that is in the public domain? Eg if I publish an annotated anthology of Shakespearean plays, I don't hold copyright over reproduction of the full work?
If I go through your post and replace the term 'Public Domain' with 'world without copyright', I think I glean your intent (and it's one that I've acknowledged here. I think it's an excessively optimistic view of how a copyright-free world would operate, but you're entitled to your opinion and I'm comfortable that for you, there's no inconsistency.
That was not a proposal, it was a thought exercise.
My apologies, please substitute the phrase "TFA appears to propose some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation" with "TFA presents the idea of some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation". If his intention was to argue that no such legislation would be necessary to enforce GPL style sharing in the hypothetical world without copyright, I must have missed it - that reading disability no doubt.
Actually on second thought, GPL advocates are just going to claim that the GPL is used to simulate a world with no copyright (I don't think it does), therefore there's no inconsistency. Under this scenario, TFA is definitely on the wrong track when it's going on about new GPL-enforcing laws to replace copyright.
I consider it closer to 'no copyright' than the GPL is. Probably a bad example. I should have said "you'd put everything into the public domain" instead.
I think GP's point is valid: supporting both GPL-style sharing & copyright abolition is inconsistent, as they're mutually exclusive - if you're a genuine copyright abolitionist, you'd support BSD instead. I don't think it would be possible to enforce the particular flavour of sharing currently enabled by the GPL with no copyright. TFA appears to propose some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation which would enforce GPL sharing - I might be missing something obvious, but it seems likely that it would just be copyright by a different name.
I suspect the intention would be for the copyright-that's-not-actually-copyright to tip the scales in favour of consumers, not-for-profit distribution etc, but exactly the same thing could be accomplished via copyright reform, so I'm curious as to how this approach could be copyright abolitionism at anything more than a technical level.
I'm an aussie (and a Telstra shareholder to be honest), and I don't think that's quite what's happening. My take is:
Telstra announced they were going to build a FTTN network out of their own money.
ACCC said "Sure, but you have to allow all your competitors wholesale access at $x" - effectively setting the ROI on the project. The competitors aren't contributing to the capital cost at all as far as I'm aware.
Telstra said "No, we're not happy with that ROI, we're not going to build it" and starting strongly criticising Govt regulation.
Telstra's competitors announced they were going to form a competing consortium to build their own FTTN network. No-one believed them.
Kevin Rudd announced that if he won government he'd sell the remaining stake in Telstra (currently earmarked for public service superannuation commitments) and use it to build a publicly owned FTTN network - ie more public telecommunications infrastructure, thus completing the circle.
As far as I'm aware, Telstra has never showed an inkling of interest in an FTTN joint venture and is certainly not stopping any other companies from building one. The reality is though, at this stage only Telstra has the wherewithal and the resources to carry out a project of this magnitude, which I assume is what's fuelling the ACCC's concern. My bet is that Coonan will cave before the election and override the ACCC - there's no advantage for Australia in NOT having a network, and Telstra has no significant short term financial disadvantages in continuing to ream us for low bandwidth connections.
Just out of interest, what do you think would be the main benefit from the govt selling the rest of Telstra to fund the construction of publicly owned telecommunications infrastructure, ie another Telstra? Or are you intimating this would also be a stupid move?
Re:Makes a little bit of sense. . .
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
Vinegar will disable the unfired nematocysts (preventing further stinging), but it won't do anything to the venom that's already been delivered. Whatever you do, don't use vodka or rub the site like the Mythbusters did.
...all you've bought is the right to view that video. You did not purchase a disc of data.
This doesn't sound right to me - perhaps it varies by country, but I understand it to be the other way around (notwithstanding the content owners' desire for it to be as you describe). You own the physical medium, you just aren't permitted to copy it. Simplistically, copyright owners make their money by selling you a copy, not licensing the right to make copies to you. I can sell a second hand DVD despite not having a sublicensing agreement with the copyright owner, but can't make copies of a DVD to sell to others.
Of course in situations where you do make a copy as part of the normal use of the item (eg iTunes store), there is a copyright license involved and the licensor can put whatever conditions on it that they desire.
I'm not going to attempt to opine whether reading a few bytes out of memory (that don't appear on the DVD at all) could constitute copyright infringement; this sort of esoteric interpretation would almost certainly depend on local laws.
I don't think people are "passing it around with the intent to circumvent a patented product'", they're passing it round because they've been told not to, and they feel that's unreasonable. Call it a campaign of civil disobedience. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of times it's been posted far exceeds the number of HD-DVD movies that have actually been sold.
Also, I'm not an IP expert, but I'm fairly sure you can't patent a password, and I would question the assertion that distributing one is illegal.
owners of this intellectual property... believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights."
I think it's a valid question - are the HD-DVD group claiming that they own copyright on this number, or is the number somehow registered as a trade secret? Certainly I can understand how linking to a code listing of a program designed to circumvent copy protection is illegal in some jurisdictions (though I would still question whether it constitutes IP infringement), but posting the number? It's akin to me issuing takedown notices for sites containing the word 'boobies'*, because that's what I use as a password to protect my files against unauthorised copying.
* Not my real password.
Re:Makes a little bit of sense. . .
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 1
I beleive people have survived after requiring CPR for many hours (jellyfish sting)
I think you're probably thinking of the fearsome blue ringed octopus - the venom doesn't paralyse the heart, but it does paralyse the chest/lungs for several hours and requires mouth-to-mouth for an extended period of time (not full CPR, unless lack of oxygen has also caused cardiac arrest). If this is carried out, there's a good chance of a full recovery.
Serious box jellyfish stings usually result in cardiac arrest, but as I understand it antivenom is the only effective treatment.
No, it's also 'disk' in British English - the way I understand it, it's short for 'diskette'. Compact Disc is spelt with a 'c', as it's not short for anything (and, as you say, originated in Europe). This is an oversimplification - Wikipedia explains.
I remember when people were complaining about Apple putting out a full-priced major release every year.
I probably would have made the same call. Leopard will be a good product - a competent, incremental improvement on an existing product - but it won't open up any vast new revenue streams like the iPhone (hopefully) will.
Actually, it does make sense - a lot of record companies (not to mention the actual artists) have been becoming increasingly nervous about the perceived low popularity of albums as opposed to single tracks. I wouldn't be surprised to see further cuts in the album price ('regular' albums, not greatest hits & the like). The new 'complete this album' feature is another component of this.
I agree. I'd also add that his attitude of: "It's hard, and they might fail, so they shouldn't even try" is perhaps more indicative of his own approach towards investment decisions than Steve's. I can't imagine the sort of bland, unpopular, design-by-committee products we'd have if no-one took risks and attempted to redefine markets like Apple try to do. Oh wait, yes I can.
In my opinion, things like launchd & Bonjour are pretty nice contributions, but I suspect the FOSS community in general is too conservative to result in widespread adoption of such newfangled ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the "I'll sell you a copy of a software product" business model disappears (as the copyright abolitionists appear to desire) and is replaced by "I'll sell you this appliance which uses software" or "I'll sell you this online service which uses software" (or a combo of the two). A variety of non-copyright lock-in mechanisms (probably mostly dependent on market clout) can then be applied to ensure the happy consumer keeps paying for their product.
Whilst the abolitionists are clearly hoping for a world where everything is free, the unfortunate truth is that it still costs the same amount of money to write software/record music etc, which we're all still going to be paying as eventual consumers.
Yes, which means no-one can reproduce the anthology in its entirety without my permission. I never claimed that I suddenly owned copyright on Shakespeare's plays, but I do own copyright on all the 'ownable' components of the anthology. You cannot photocopy my anthology & sell it to others, notwithstanding it's been derived from works in the public domain.
However, you said:
This is incorrect - you have no right to 'use' (I assume you mean 'copy/modify/distribute') my annotations to Shakespeare by virtue of the actual plays being in the public domain. You do under the GPL as I've implicitly granted you that right by agreeing to the license.I don't have a better solution than the current one, with a few tweaks to restore balance. I certainly don't think that 'abolish copyright' is a smart option, even if it were remotely feasible. I suspect most abolitionists can't look past the obvious copyright abuses to recognise the significant benefits this mechanism gives us.
I'm still not convinced that replacing copyright laws with new laws enabling an author to "apply conditions on the distribution of the work and to have his authorship recognized" qualifies as copyright abolition - it sounds to me more like (radical) copyright reform. Effectively it would be like saying: "copyright still exists, as long as it's just used to enforce the GPL".
...unless use is restricted to signed binaries on locked hardware. All of a sudden there's none of the GPL v3 protection, because there's no copyright, so I can happily take your community built code, improve it, make a billion dollars and/or become famous but not give you squat in return.
Law of unintended consequences, people - if there's no copyright, industries that depend upon it for a living are going to need to find another way to make money, and it's probably not going to be one that you'll like.
I'm obviously having difficulty reading, as I'm struggling to make sense of your post. Are you saying that it's not possible to own copyright on a work derived from an item that is in the public domain? Eg if I publish an annotated anthology of Shakespearean plays, I don't hold copyright over reproduction of the full work?
If I go through your post and replace the term 'Public Domain' with 'world without copyright', I think I glean your intent (and it's one that I've acknowledged here. I think it's an excessively optimistic view of how a copyright-free world would operate, but you're entitled to your opinion and I'm comfortable that for you, there's no inconsistency.
My apologies, please substitute the phrase "TFA appears to propose some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation" with "TFA presents the idea of some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation". If his intention was to argue that no such legislation would be necessary to enforce GPL style sharing in the hypothetical world without copyright, I must have missed it - that reading disability no doubt.
Actually on second thought, GPL advocates are just going to claim that the GPL is used to simulate a world with no copyright (I don't think it does), therefore there's no inconsistency. Under this scenario, TFA is definitely on the wrong track when it's going on about new GPL-enforcing laws to replace copyright.
I consider it closer to 'no copyright' than the GPL is. Probably a bad example. I should have said "you'd put everything into the public domain" instead.
I think GP's point is valid: supporting both GPL-style sharing & copyright abolition is inconsistent, as they're mutually exclusive - if you're a genuine copyright abolitionist, you'd support BSD instead. I don't think it would be possible to enforce the particular flavour of sharing currently enabled by the GPL with no copyright. TFA appears to propose some sort of nebulous copyright replacement legislation which would enforce GPL sharing - I might be missing something obvious, but it seems likely that it would just be copyright by a different name.
I suspect the intention would be for the copyright-that's-not-actually-copyright to tip the scales in favour of consumers, not-for-profit distribution etc, but exactly the same thing could be accomplished via copyright reform, so I'm curious as to how this approach could be copyright abolitionism at anything more than a technical level.
I'm an aussie (and a Telstra shareholder to be honest), and I don't think that's quite what's happening. My take is:
As far as I'm aware, Telstra has never showed an inkling of interest in an FTTN joint venture and is certainly not stopping any other companies from building one. The reality is though, at this stage only Telstra has the wherewithal and the resources to carry out a project of this magnitude, which I assume is what's fuelling the ACCC's concern. My bet is that Coonan will cave before the election and override the ACCC - there's no advantage for Australia in NOT having a network, and Telstra has no significant short term financial disadvantages in continuing to ream us for low bandwidth connections.
Just out of interest, what do you think would be the main benefit from the govt selling the rest of Telstra to fund the construction of publicly owned telecommunications infrastructure, ie another Telstra? Or are you intimating this would also be a stupid move?
Vinegar will disable the unfired nematocysts (preventing further stinging), but it won't do anything to the venom that's already been delivered. Whatever you do, don't use vodka or rub the site like the Mythbusters did.
This doesn't sound right to me - perhaps it varies by country, but I understand it to be the other way around (notwithstanding the content owners' desire for it to be as you describe). You own the physical medium, you just aren't permitted to copy it. Simplistically, copyright owners make their money by selling you a copy, not licensing the right to make copies to you. I can sell a second hand DVD despite not having a sublicensing agreement with the copyright owner, but can't make copies of a DVD to sell to others.
Of course in situations where you do make a copy as part of the normal use of the item (eg iTunes store), there is a copyright license involved and the licensor can put whatever conditions on it that they desire.
I'm not going to attempt to opine whether reading a few bytes out of memory (that don't appear on the DVD at all) could constitute copyright infringement; this sort of esoteric interpretation would almost certainly depend on local laws.
I don't think people are "passing it around with the intent to circumvent a patented product'", they're passing it round because they've been told not to, and they feel that's unreasonable. Call it a campaign of civil disobedience. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of times it's been posted far exceeds the number of HD-DVD movies that have actually been sold.
Also, I'm not an IP expert, but I'm fairly sure you can't patent a password, and I would question the assertion that distributing one is illegal.
What GP was referring to was this quote:
I think it's a valid question - are the HD-DVD group claiming that they own copyright on this number, or is the number somehow registered as a trade secret? Certainly I can understand how linking to a code listing of a program designed to circumvent copy protection is illegal in some jurisdictions (though I would still question whether it constitutes IP infringement), but posting the number? It's akin to me issuing takedown notices for sites containing the word 'boobies'*, because that's what I use as a password to protect my files against unauthorised copying.
* Not my real password.
I think you're probably thinking of the fearsome blue ringed octopus - the venom doesn't paralyse the heart, but it does paralyse the chest/lungs for several hours and requires mouth-to-mouth for an extended period of time (not full CPR, unless lack of oxygen has also caused cardiac arrest). If this is carried out, there's a good chance of a full recovery.
Serious box jellyfish stings usually result in cardiac arrest, but as I understand it antivenom is the only effective treatment.
Yes, because that's how all mass shootings normally end. Seriously, who swallows this argument?
No, it's also 'disk' in British English - the way I understand it, it's short for 'diskette'. Compact Disc is spelt with a 'c', as it's not short for anything (and, as you say, originated in Europe). This is an oversimplification - Wikipedia explains.
I remember when people were complaining about Apple putting out a full-priced major release every year.
I probably would have made the same call. Leopard will be a good product - a competent, incremental improvement on an existing product - but it won't open up any vast new revenue streams like the iPhone (hopefully) will.
How is the (paraphrased) comment "software probably contains bugs" insightful?
Actually, it does make sense - a lot of record companies (not to mention the actual artists) have been becoming increasingly nervous about the perceived low popularity of albums as opposed to single tracks. I wouldn't be surprised to see further cuts in the album price ('regular' albums, not greatest hits & the like). The new 'complete this album' feature is another component of this.
I agree. I'd also add that his attitude of: "It's hard, and they might fail, so they shouldn't even try" is perhaps more indicative of his own approach towards investment decisions than Steve's. I can't imagine the sort of bland, unpopular, design-by-committee products we'd have if no-one took risks and attempted to redefine markets like Apple try to do. Oh wait, yes I can.
In my opinion, things like launchd & Bonjour are pretty nice contributions, but I suspect the FOSS community in general is too conservative to result in widespread adoption of such newfangled ideas.
Apple contributes no code to gnustep AFAIK.
It's okay, I was attempting to be funny (and obviously failing). Perhaps I should have misspelled it 'Search Lez TV'?
What sort of videos does 'Search Les TV' stream?
Unless they meant US Survey feet, which would be 10972.821945643891287782575565151 mm (approx).