Someone else seems to have replied more than adequately, but I'll pile on anyway.
These so-called "products" are intangible and therefore cannot be "owned" by anyone. They are simply data.
This is remarkably naïve. Please, go talk with your favorite musician, author, or artist and ask them to produce a major work for you for free. Then when you're finished, talk with all those who provide us our music, literature, and art. You will find that very few of them -- if any -- will give away the fruits of the labor for nothing. Economics, friend: there are very few suppliers at zero price.
Why should anyone be able to control anything because they created it? If I baked a cake and sold it to you would you accept that I have the absolute right to control where/when/how you consumed it and whether or not you shared it? I hope not.
Of course I would accept that you have that right! After all, it's YOUR cake. You made it, didn't you? Or are you really suggesting that you wouldn't mind if I just ate your cake without giving you anything in return? And would you continue to produce cakes if my friends and I ate every single one of your cakes without compensating you?
You have the right to determine the conditions under which you will part with YOUR cake. Of course, if the price is too high -- and part of that price would be the restrictions you place upon how I may consume it -- you will have very few potential buyers. Again: simple economics. At a very high price, there are relatively few buyers of a product.
Ideas and other creative works can never be stolen - they can only be copied. If I copy your idea, you still have it. Nobody has lost anything. If you don't want anyone to copy your work, the only way (without imposing artificial restrictions) you can guarantee it is to keep it to yourself.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what copyright is. Copyright does not extend to the ideas expressed in a covered work; it ONLY covers the particular EXPRESSION of the ideas.
The reason we can have a nearly infinite number of legal and copyrighted murder mysteries is that their authors don't copy each other's words verbatim; but obviously the IDEA is the same: someone dies; someone solves the mystery.
In the software world the same applies: an algorithm is an idea. It can be EXPRESSED in a variety of ways: different languages, different variable names, different whitespace, etc. Copyright does NOT cover an algorithm. It covers the code: a particular representation of the algorithm.
The person who wrote the code OWNS that particular representation of the algorithm. It is his to do with as he pleases. He does NOT own the algorithm. That is a matter of patents, and that is a different horse altogether. If you copy MY code without giving me the compensation I want, I *do* lose something. And next time, I may not be so generous -- so you lose something, too.
Creative people enjoy creating. It's a fundamental part of being human - it's what human beings do, a law of nature if you will.
Another fundamental part of being human is eating. So is raising a family. Again, you are fundamentally naïve if you think that creativity is a boundless well that you can endlessly muddy with theft without eventually poisoning it. There are costs associated with producing *anything* and very few producers of goods will simply eat those costs without any hope of compensation ("very few" == nearly zero).
I'm sorry but the tactic of shouting "Communist" or "Marxist" at anybody that won't toe the corporate line simply will not wash. I believe in a free market economy with no artificial restrictions on duplication.
LOL! That's rich. How do you simultaneously hold beliefs that are in such manifest conflict?
You obviously weren't paying attention. I said that it is intrinsically Marxist to suggest that a producer of something does not own it ("From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"). This is the very heart and soul of the GNU philosophy. It is evil.
Lastly, you seem to have me confused with someone who thinks that the prices charged for music these days are A-OK. I don't buy much music at all, and I'm far more inclined to buy used CDs than new. If the prices of CDs were more reasonable, I would buy more. I think that the RIAA has created this monster due to its own foolishness -- but it's still a monster. Theft is still evil.
There's a simple solution: if you don't want to pay the price, DON'T LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. If I don't agree to your terms, I don't get to eat your cake. But here's the problem: far too many people lie to themselves, pretending that they have a "right" to free music, or to free software, or to free...whatever. This is a lie. We have no such right. What we have are a bunch of spoiled people, acting like children and throwing tantrums (and doing evil) when they don't get their way.
authors should support their creative efforts by waiting on tables
This is a joke, right?
Having just skimmed the Manifesto again, I'd have to say that this is probably not a joke. Instead, I'd have to say that RMS is a utopian loon with nary a clue about economics or human nature. His appeal to the Golden Rule (a rule grounded not in any ravings by that babbler Kant -- contra RMS -- but rather in the Bible) is preposterous.
The net result of this "system" (to be very generous) of Stallman's would be the eradication of productivity in whatever sphere it was applied. Music -- gone. Books -- gone. Art -- gone. Software -- gone. This is simple economics. If people are not allowed to profit from *their* property -- and the code I write *IS* my property, even if someone else could duplicate the algorithms (NOTE: patents and copyrights are VERY different) -- then they will have NO incentive to share that property with others. Period. The inevitable consequence is reduced supply. This is what ALWAYS happens with price controls (and the RMS "system" amounts to nothing more than price controls): if the official "price" is lower than what producers are willing to accept in exchange for their goods, they will NOT sell.
Supply and demand. It's simple. At zero price, there are *very* few suppliers.
I don't know whether you consider yourself a Communist, but your post is an example of why folk paint all GPLers as Marxists.
The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!
The GPL exists to protect your rights to use, share, and modify software. Without copyright, no one could stop you from using or sharing; and if pay-per-copy were eliminated, there'd be no motive for authors not to share their source code, and as more people understand the necessity of open source for quality, every reason for them to do so.
Your argument for the destruction of copyright is intrinsically immoral. It would mean that the producer of a given piece of software, or of a given song, or of a given book, would NOT own what he has produced, because he would NOT be able to retain control of it (unless he kept it as his personal secret, to the deprivation of the rest of us).
In short, your viewpoint would result in the THEFT of these products from those who created them. So what incentive have they to continue producing? ANSWER: NONE WHATSOEVER.
You may suggest that they can earn money by "supporting" their product. Fine. Let's consider this.
How does a musician "support" his music? How does an author "support" his short stories or books? How does an artist "support" his painting? By "debugging" it?
More importantly, who are you to tell a producer how he may use what he creates? It belongs to him, not you! This is why your argument is intrinsically Marxist: you deny that the producer owns what he creates.
since Linus, Larry and the rest of their happy-go-lucky crowd are all GPL fanatics
Is this why Larry allows the use of the Artistic License with Perl? Have you ever read *anything* that Linus has said about the licensing of the kernel?
Oh wow, they hired a lawyer! Gosh, they must be legal whizzes now mustn't they? Does that mean that if I hire a lawyer and copyright something, I can get to be a bearded guru as well?
You have demolished your own credibility. You don't even know how copyright works, and yet you have the temerity to babble about the credibility of those who hold copyrights on useful software.
For your information, O Ignorant One, no lawyer is required for a published work to be copyrighted. A published work is protected by copyright as soon as it is produced.
More, this lame response of yours fails to address the point I made: that one who holds copyright holder on popular software has far more prima facie credibility in speaking about the importance of copyright than does a slashdotter who doesn't. Of course, they may damage that credibility by how they use it, but your weak criticisms (which amount to nothing more than "I disagree with them, so they have no credibility!" Lame) do nothing but destroy your *own* credibility.
Only an idiot would purposefully saddle themselves with Richard Stallmann's viral piece of communist manifesto. Personally I perfer the BSD license
Then you are not as large a hypocrite as others. Good for you. Nevertheless, to the extent that the BSD license differs from releasing a published work to the public domain, it too depends 100% upon the validity of copyright.
Unless you expect producers to release their products solely and exclusively into the public domain, copyright is essential. And if this is really what you think, then you are a nut who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Have a nice supper, but don't complain about your poverty!
What on Earth makes people think that the opinions of a bunch of open source "gurus" has any more validity than the IANAL post of the average/.er?
Because, unlike the average/.er, Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Wall have created copyrighted works that are enormously popular.
Are you a GNU zealot? You do realize, don't you, that the GPL depends solely and completely upon the validity of copyright? That without copyright, the GPL is so much toilet paper?
These people may be able to program, but they're not lawyers, they're not politicians and they're just not qualified to share their views on this subject.
And I suppose that you *are* somehow more qualified than they to offer a viewpoint? Has it escaped your notice that any copyright holder has an obvious interest in seeing the copyright protections of all copyrighted works upheld? Today, the RIAA; tomorrow the GPL. You can't have it both ways.
I was called upon to create a placeholder Windows help file for an application. Nothing fancy -- just a couple paragraphs and absolutely no special formatting to it at all. I created the source file in Microsoft Wordpad on Microsoft Win95 and added it to my helpfile project in a Microsoft-produced helpfile-creator.
The program refused to build the helpfile. It complained that the RTF was invalid.
Thinking that this was odd, I went to Microsoft Word 97, wrote the file there, saved it as RTF, and tried this brand new file in the same Microsoft-produced helpfile creator.
AGAIN the program complained that the RTF was invalid.
So I moved to my Linux box, fired up Applix 4.3.7, typed in the file, saved it as RTF, moved it to the Windows box, and tried again -- this time with an RTF file produced in a NON-Microsoft product.
IF Microsoft had an otherwise good (I'm not saying perfect) record about security, and IF they didn't ALREADY have a reputation for lying to their customers ("no bugs" in Windows 2000??? "no significant bugs" in any Microsoft products???), I might be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They're lying so as to minimize the PR damage they are going to suffer for this, coming as it does on the heels of ANOTHER Microsoft design choice that was grossly stupid (I'm speaking, of course, of ILOVEYOU).
Do you believe everything Bill tells you? How much do they pay for that Astroturf campaign?
MS generally delivers patches for these security holes before serious exploits happen in great numbers.
Yes, like just two weeks ago when ILOVEYOU was out, right? MS had the patch out "before serious exploits," right?
Melissa
Bubbleboy
Chernobyl (still no MS fix for that)
Word macro viruses
Excel macro viruses
Michelangelo
Let's be real here. Microsoft's concern for security could fit in one thimble along with Dilbert's enthusiasm. If they really cared about it they would have fixed the "every-user-is-root" problem years and years and years ago.
No company that says their latest software release will be bug-free (while having a list of 63,000 bugs they knew about at release time) can be taken seriously when it comes to security. No company that has to be goaded by bad press into fixing Outlook Express can be taken seriously. No company that denies that its customers care about bugs can be taken seriously.
These elites do not rest with merely believing that they know what's good for the rest of us.
They compound their arrogance, their hubris with the nonsensical and tyrannical notion that they SHOULD tell the rest of us how we ought to live. It is not that their views have any substantial moral force to which we ought to listen; it is simply that they believe that they are better than everyone else.
Poppycock. Their arrogance betrays their commonness.
Private property is *one* fundamental tenet of capitalism.
While other things may be important to capitalism, private property is the sine qua non of capitalism: In its absence there is no capitalism at all.
if you oppose murder for hire, then by your own logic, I don't see how you can call yourself a capitalist.
Neither a free society nor capitalism can exist in a moral vacuum. Among other things, the right to private property must be protected -- no one has the right to steal your stuff, right? No one has the right to destroy my property, either. So how absurd would it be for us to suppose that private property is protected but our lives are not?
Can contracts survive where honesty and truthfulness are not valued? Of course not! You think you're being clever, but you're really not.
Simply because somthing CAN be used illegally is not grounds for making that something illegal.
This amazingly irrelevant statement is attached to a quote that you cleverly ripped from its context. What I said had to do specifically with the poster's professed willingness to violate copyright while at the same time being upset about not having legal access to MP3.com. A person who is willing to violate copyright is obviously not particularly interested in what is legal, so it's pretty silly to pretend to be all worked up about not having "legal" access to something. If you will look you will see that this is exactly how the poster understood it, and it was in fact my intent. I'm sorry you didn't get it.
Notwithstanding all this, your point is completely irrelevant in the present context. I never said anything that could be reasonably interpreted to dispute this point. The problem with MP3.com is that it is SURELY being used for illegal purposes -- it is not a question of taking away something that merely *might* be used illegally. If MP3.com can demonstrate that their system is designed and secured so as to effectively REQUIRE that its users actually own the CDs for which they're getting MP3's, then I can't think of any particular reason why I'd be bothered by them. Lastly, to borrow your gun analogy -- I assert that law enforcement would be fully within their rights to shut down a gun shop where illegal arms trafficking was occurring right alongside legitimate firearms sales. Such an event does NOT represent an attack upon legitimate ownership of guns. In the same way -- if MP3.com is trafficking in pirated music right alongside legitimate music, I have NO problem with law enforcement shutting them down. This does not mean that either they or someone else is not free to act within the law in a manner that is perhaps even substantially similar to the way MP3.com does business now. It does mean that thievery will not be tolerated. Perhaps the MP3.com folk mean no harm -- but then they have an obligation to ensure that no harm is done using their systems, just as gun dealers can't just turn a blind eye to the law as it pertains to guns.
If I infringe your copyright, you suffer no loss.
This is simply ignorant. If you infringe my copyright I lose the compensation -- of whatever form -- that I would otherwise have enjoyed had you honored my copyright. If enough people engage in this practice, I might decide that I am not being sufficiently compensated to bother with the costs associated with producing my copyrighted goods -- and then YOU lose, too.
In the long run the result of the abandonment of copyright is this: less of the goods that were formerly protected by copyright. Why is this? Because fewer people will agree to share their art with others for reduced or zero compensation.
Lack of gain != loss
You fail to understand economics. Lack of gain == reduced income (reduced by the amount you failed to pay me). If this is done by enough people, my income approaches zero. At some point prior to that I will surely conclude that I am not making enough money in this business, so I may as well go on to something else. Result: YOU lose production of a good you previously valued enough to at least steal.
have I stolen from Ford by buying a Chevy?
Ford's income is reduced by the amount of money that you spent on a Chevy rather than on a Ford. If enough people do this, Ford goes out of business.
On top of all this, you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between patents and copyright. You need to fix this. The two are different. Copyright does NOT extend to the ideas presented in a work. It extends to the particular expression of those ideas -- namely, they are MY words put together in (hopefully entertaining or educational) sentences of MY construction. The ideas themselves are fair game. This is very different from patents, which are all about ideas: I can't make my own version of a cotton gin -- even one that's better -- as long as Eli Whitney's patent on the gin is in force. Differing expressions of the same idea are forbidden by patents, but not by copyright.
I'm getting pretty sick of the histrionics of people who claim copyright infringement is theft.
Judging from your post, we don't have a monopoly on histrionics.:-)
It is my belief that I should be properly compensated for the work I do.
I believe you ought to extend the same courtesy to the music industry. And just as it is up to you to decide what is "proper" compensation for your work, so too it is up to them to determine what is "proper" for theirs.
Of course, market forces may agree or disagree with both the music industry's and your assessment of whether that compensation you want is actually "proper" or not. I'm guessing you are gainfully employed, so the market seems to agree with you.
And in the same way, the market seems to agree that the music industry is not overcharging for their products -- whatever you or I may think.
By what standard do you arrive at the conclusion that present music prices are "immoral"?
the automatic connection between capitalism and freedom does not hold in my opinion.
I disagree completely. The two are linked. It's not a direct, one-to-one correllation, but the connection is obvious and compelling. One need only look at one or two pathological cases to see my point. In the Soviet Union no one had private property at all -- and no freedom at all. The same situation exists in Communist China, but with a twist: The government has permitted some capitalism to exist, but they now are struggling to keep the lid on the liberating force that private property actually is. Arguably the circumstance is more complex than this caricature, but it is simply undeniable that prior to the introduction of a tiny measure of capitalism into the PRC there was *far* less freedom (and even less impetus to liberty) than there is today.
It's just that the blind assumption "the USA is the most capitalist country, and the most free, therefore capitalism = freedom" should be challenged.
I did not use the US as an example. I do not think that we are particularly free today; certainly we have lost a great deal of our liberty. I believe that it is no mere coincidence that the restrictions on the free market that we see today (contra the situation during the 1800s) have developed at the same time as the restrictions on our liberty.
The unfortunate side effect is that big corporations with a lot of money can force the little guy with no money into a legal settlement, simply because they can afford the outrageous legal fees that the little guy cannot. I'll admit that that is more a problem of the legal system than the capitalist system.
That is correct. The legal system is rigged to a very great extent against the little guy now. But the justice or injustice of the court system doesn't seem to me to have any necessary connection to the economic system, except as it enforces (or fails to enforce) the existing laws relating to private property.
Of course, the fact that there are defects in the legal system does not in any way change the fact that copyright is a legitimate and necessary feature of a capitalist and free society...and that the record companies are therefore perfectly within their rights in attacking MP3.com -- until or unless it is is demonstrated that MP3.com has not infringed upon the copyrights held by the record companies.
How is it then that music existed before recording technology?
Are you completely lacking in knowledge of history? All you need to do is look at the state of classical music today for your answer. There is nowhere close to a large enough market for this music to produce employment for as many symphonies as there are. That is why the VAST majority of them are subsidized. In the past it was no different.
Producing art for free is not a growth industry. The costs are too great, and someone is going to have to pay.
Do you really think that the only way for an artist to make money is to "product-ize" their work and stamp out copies to sell?
Please, deliver me from my ignorance. Tell me exactly how -- without copyright -- we can have the same quantity and quality of music we presently enjoy. Put up or shut up, friend. Show us how it can be done, now that you've insisted that it can be done.
Before copyright artists had patrons who subsidized their work by providing a living for them. Those who had no patron didn't live well (to say the least). Your "argument" (cough) is no refutation of anything I said.
You assume that controlling data is the only way to make money off of it. The Free Software movement shows that that's not true.
In the first place Richard Stallman isn't exactly living large on the return he has made from the software he has written. In the second place you falsely assume that GPL'ed software is not controlled. It IS. The GPL is founded wholly and solely upon the legitimacy of copyright. Absent strongly enforced copyright there is NOTHING to prevent a commercial entity from sucking up all this 'free' code and creating a new and proprietary and fully binary software product under their own label and with no mention of any indebtedness to anyone else in the world.
Do you GPL your code? Would you like Microsoft or any other corporation to take your code and use it as they see fit without any regard for your wishes? If you don't care, then why not place your code in the public domain? If you do care, then quit being a hypocrite and give the musician the same right to do what he wants with his product -- even if that means selling it to those big bad record companies you loathe.
I do feel that I have a fundamental right to any piece of non-private (not personal / financial) data, yes.
What a fine and self-serving definition of "private" you have. So would you mind if I came by your house and took your car? It's not "private" by your definition.
You don't think that there are financial costs associated with the production of music? You don't think that artists should be compensated for these costs?
denying it to me is creating artificial scarcity.
You really don't understand economics, do you? Music is intrinsically a scarce good because its supply is NOT unlimited.
you must be consfusing Free software with Open Source
No, I am NOT. Why don't YOU go read this, where the FSF says (among other things) "we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." Further, I believe that if you ask Mr. Stallman you will find that he is opposed to copyright violations because he knows that the GPL stands upon this foundation ALONE. You will not find arguments for software piracy (or any other form of piracy) at www.gnu.org.
If you're going to look to Stallman for inspiration for your loony ideas about music, be sure you look at everything he writes first -- not just the parts you like.
But I happen to disagree with it, and I happen to disagree with the laws that protect it.
Then I honestly don't think you can call yourself a capitalist at all. This is fundamental to capitalism: the right to private property. If you dispute the legitimacy of copyright, you implicitly dispute the legitimacy of private property.
I don't believe that these money grubbing record labels should have the right to add a surcharge on ignorance.
How nice of you to decide for me whether I can or cannot pay "too much" for a product. Value (economically speaking) is subjective: the value of a thing is what *I* am willing to give up in order to obtain it. On the other hand, for you the value of that thing is what YOU are willing to give up for it. This fact is hidden to a great extent by the efficiency of the pricing system in this country, but it is no less true.
Furthermore, how is it that you think that you have a right to dictate to anyone the terms under which they will sell what they own? After all, this is the force of what you are saying here when you say you think they ought to have their ownership rights restricted.
This sounds noble, but it is unworkable. It cannot reasonably be applied to economics generally. Are you making a special case for hatred of music companies? That's rather arbitrary. Especially for something that is so trivial as music. Tell me, do you have similar loathing for the long distance companies that charge more than rock-bottom? Do you violate the law to obtain long distance service as a form of "protest"? Or cable TV?
I don't believe they should be allowed to deny the rights of others to provide an alternative to their collective monopoly.
They have no power whatsoever to control the distribution of music for which they do not own the distribution rights. This means that any independent band may set up its own website and sell their music by the download if they wish. No one can prevent it.
On the other hand, no one has the right to subvert copyrights.
By shutting down MP3.com, napster, and other such legally-iffy institutions, these people are denying my rights to use them, if in the off chance I wish to use them legally.
Later in your post you practically admit that you do NOT use these things legally, when you say "I choose to willfully do my best to fight that. Yes, that includes breaking copyright law." So your alleged concerns about having "legal access" to MP3.com seem rather empty.
Setting that aside, however, I honestly don't see how you can possibly demonstrate that MP3.com can protect copyright, short of requiring its users to actually send in their own CDs. As it stands, a user can simply claim to own a disc, but there is no way to verify that.
Yes, that includes breaking copyright law.
Are you a programmer? Tell me, do you apply these same "scruples" (ahem) to your code?
The institution of Copyright also has costs, for the government and ultimately the citizen.
These costs are substantially lower when the citizenry respects the property rights of the copyright holder. When people have a massive disrespect for property of others -- as is the case in the U.S. today -- then indeed the costs are greater -- but only because the people have become morally degraded.
The whole apparatus of copyright registration,
There is no such thing. A work is copyrighted immediately upon being produced. There is no additional "registration" involved in enjoying the benefits of copyright protection -- at least not here in the United States (I have no idea what the situation is like in other countries). Publishers will register their products with the Library of Congress (in the United States) because they perceive there is an additional benefit to doing so -- but it has nothing to do with copyright. Look around you -- do you REALLY think that all these millions of copyrighted materials have been vetted by some clerk in Washington/London/Sao Paolo/wherever?
investigation and prosecution of criminal copyright cases, courts to hear civil and criminal copyright cases, prison cells for people convicted of criminal infringement, is a substantial cost.
Yes. These are costs of a free society where private property is officially respected. If the citizenry does not itself respect copyright, then these costs will be high -- but this lack of respect by the public cannot reasonably be said to be a virtue. It is in fact a gross hypocrisy (see how people yelp when THEIR stuff is stolen!)
If the end result is not a significant benefit to the public, then Copyright should be abolished.
Copyright is massively beneficial to the public. They would not have all this music to listen to without it. They would not have all these books to read without it. They would not have movies to watch and software to use without copyright.
The two are really inseparable though different. There is no true liberty where there is no right to private property, and there is positively no capitalist system where private property rights are snuffed out by the state.
Free enterprise often implies the ability to restrict other people's freedom.
The only "restriction" free enterprise places is on the fact that a man has the right to control his own property, and that another man does not have the right to coerce him into disposing of it in ways he does not want. But that works both ways: everyone's property is protected.
The American national pastime of sueing everyone over every little thing is an illustration of this.
The litigiousness of American society cannot reasonably be said to be a necessary feature of capitalism. The fact that this litigiousness has only appeared in the last century demonstrates this. The U.S. was far more capitalistic in the 19th century, in that there were far fewer restrictions upon how a man might use his private property. It is only with the growth of additional restrictions upon that freedom that we have seen the explosion of lawsuits in this country. I don't believe that the demise of capitalism and the rise of the lawsuit are particularly linked to each other, but certainly litigiousness is not in any way a feature of capitalism.
Why do I think (C) is the wrong way to do things? Because it doesn't work. It doesn't work on 2 levels: first, ARTISTS CAN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY.
So how much money would an artist make if there was no copyright protection on his work? Answer: approximately US$0.00. There would be no economic incentive for anyone to pay for music that they could obtain for free. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are no friend of "starving artists" if you really think that their interests are better served by abandoning copyright. If they are dissatisfied with the amount of money they receive from the record companies, then they have a simple solution: don't sign unsatisfactory contracts with record companies. You seem to be suffering from the misconception that these "starving artists" were somehow coerced into giving up control of their music to the record companies. Nothing could be further from the truth -- especially in an age where "starving artists" can use the Internet to distribute their music themselves.
But if we abandon copyright on music, then they can't even make money THAT way, can they?
Second, I have to pay for music.
Poor poor pitiful you. You do not realize that there are costs associated with creating music? You do not think that music creators have a right to be compensated for the expenses associated with making music? You think you have some sort of fundamental right to free and unlimited access to music created by others?
If this is true, I weep for your country.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
Richard Stallman is hopefully not so blind as to fail to realize that it is copyright that gives his GPL any force whatsoever. Remove copyright from GPL'ed software and what do you have? You have software that can be made proprietary by anyone who wishes to do so. If you GPL your software, you had better realize this fact. If you do realize this fact, then you need to abandon the hypocrisy of opposing copyright on music.
Lastly, unless I'm quite mistaken Mr. Stallman is NOT opposed to the idea of paying for software. He simply wants access to the code. So I really don't think you can go looking to the FSF for a defense of abandoning copyright OR "free music."
You, sir, have not the slightest clue about the subject.
Don't you remember basic economics? A written or recorded work is private property: it belongs to the person who produced it. There were costs associated with its production: time, money, effort, and so forth. If the owner of that private property wishes to share it with others, he has the fundamental right to do so under conditions that are acceptable to him. NO ONE has the right to dictate to him the conditions under which he will do so. If he wishes to be paid in money for his work, that is his privilege. If he wishes to give it away, that is his right as well.
Copyright is NOT "just like normal patents." This is a gross misunderstanding. A patent prevents others from using/profiting from an idea that a patent holder had. Copyright protects the particular expression found in the copyrighted material. You and I can both write a book about the postage stamps of Bolivia, and unless we plagiarize each other we are not violating copyright. On the other hand, if you invent a new method or tool for tilling the soil in the hilly areas of Bolivia and then patent it, I am enjoined by law from both copying your idea AND from coming up with something on my own that is substantially similar to your patented work. This is vastly different from copyright.
Lastly, it is copyright which is the fundamental protection behind all software. Unless you're a warez boy and just don't care, you had better realize that no software is safe if copyrights are abandoned.
Copyright is NOT "anti-capitalist." That is the most preposterous thing I've read today.
IF you tear down the walls on copyright law, all of a sudden, that oh-so-precious GPL license is also equally meaningless.
This occurred to me after I posted. It is a brilliant point, and the pirates here who crave "free music" would be singing a different tune if it were GPL'ed software that was at stake.
Copyright, boys and girls, is the ONLY thing that gives the GPL any force whatsoever. Take away copyright, and you can kiss your "free as in speech" software goodbye. It's time to get over your crass hypocrisy and realize that copyright is fundamentally important in a free society.
Pleas tell me what I should do to legaly listen to all these formats I purchased legally...
Make your MP3s or CDs yourself, and don't give them away to others. Honestly, this isn't that hard. Purchasing an LP does not mean you were granted any rights to some "perpetual upgrade." You bought copies of copyrighted material. You do not have any claim on anything other than the material you purchased. You do not have the right to subvert copyright because technology has left your former purchases behind.
This is tantamount to saying you have a right to steal a car because you once bought a bicycle. Sorry -- it doesn't hold water.
Copyright is abusive? Immoral? Ho ho. To the contrary, it is fundamentally capitalist. You who claim to be in favor of free enterprise are rather shortsighted if you really have a problem with copyright.
Producing music or books has associated costs. Copyright ensures that those who bear those costs also have an opportunity to benefit from producing these goods for the rest of us. It protects those who create music and books from plagiarism (among other things).
The only alternative to copyrighted music is: much, much less music available to enjoy.
I am not here intending to defend the record companies. Their products are grossly overpriced, in my opinion -- but note: they cannot charge more than people are willing to pay, because they cannot force people to buy their products. The fact that I refuse to spend $15 on a CD is irrelevant, because an awful lot of people are perfectly willing to do so.
To the extent that MP3's are used in pirating music, McCartney or any other owner of copyrighted music is absolutely and completely within his rights to seek to protect what is lawfully his.
If you ignore copyright -- if you make or own pirate copies of copyrighted music -- you are implicitly denying that a private property owner has the right to do what he wishes with what he owns within the bounds of the law. You are thereby undermining your claim to be a capitalist, and you are similarly undermining your right to be outraged when someone steals something out of your house.
You're free to make MP3s from CDs you own yourself -- just don't go trafficking in pirated goods.
Slashdot Mirror
These so-called "products" are intangible and therefore cannot be "owned" by anyone. They are simply data.
This is remarkably naïve. Please, go talk with your favorite musician, author, or artist and ask them to produce a major work for you for free. Then when you're finished, talk with all those who provide us our music, literature, and art. You will find that very few of them -- if any -- will give away the fruits of the labor for nothing. Economics, friend: there are very few suppliers at zero price.
Why should anyone be able to control anything because they created it? If I baked a cake and sold it to you would you accept that I have the absolute right to control where/when/how you consumed it and whether or not you shared it? I hope not.
Of course I would accept that you have that right! After all, it's YOUR cake. You made it, didn't you? Or are you really suggesting that you wouldn't mind if I just ate your cake without giving you anything in return? And would you continue to produce cakes if my friends and I ate every single one of your cakes without compensating you?
You have the right to determine the conditions under which you will part with YOUR cake. Of course, if the price is too high -- and part of that price would be the restrictions you place upon how I may consume it -- you will have very few potential buyers. Again: simple economics. At a very high price, there are relatively few buyers of a product.
Ideas and other creative works can never be stolen - they can only be copied. If I copy your idea, you still have it. Nobody has lost anything. If you don't want anyone to copy your work, the only way (without imposing artificial restrictions) you can guarantee it is to keep it to yourself.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what copyright is. Copyright does not extend to the ideas expressed in a covered work; it ONLY covers the particular EXPRESSION of the ideas.
The reason we can have a nearly infinite number of legal and copyrighted murder mysteries is that their authors don't copy each other's words verbatim; but obviously the IDEA is the same: someone dies; someone solves the mystery.
In the software world the same applies: an algorithm is an idea. It can be EXPRESSED in a variety of ways: different languages, different variable names, different whitespace, etc. Copyright does NOT cover an algorithm. It covers the code: a particular representation of the algorithm.
The person who wrote the code OWNS that particular representation of the algorithm. It is his to do with as he pleases. He does NOT own the algorithm. That is a matter of patents, and that is a different horse altogether. If you copy MY code without giving me the compensation I want, I *do* lose something. And next time, I may not be so generous -- so you lose something, too.
Creative people enjoy creating. It's a fundamental part of being human - it's what human beings do, a law of nature if you will.
Another fundamental part of being human is eating. So is raising a family. Again, you are fundamentally naïve if you think that creativity is a boundless well that you can endlessly muddy with theft without eventually poisoning it. There are costs associated with producing *anything* and very few producers of goods will simply eat those costs without any hope of compensation ("very few" == nearly zero).
I'm sorry but the tactic of shouting "Communist" or "Marxist" at anybody that won't toe the corporate line simply will not wash. I believe in a free market economy with no artificial restrictions on duplication.
LOL! That's rich. How do you simultaneously hold beliefs that are in such manifest conflict?
You obviously weren't paying attention. I said that it is intrinsically Marxist to suggest that a producer of something does not own it ("From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"). This is the very heart and soul of the GNU philosophy. It is evil.
Lastly, you seem to have me confused with someone who thinks that the prices charged for music these days are A-OK. I don't buy much music at all, and I'm far more inclined to buy used CDs than new. If the prices of CDs were more reasonable, I would buy more. I think that the RIAA has created this monster due to its own foolishness -- but it's still a monster. Theft is still evil.
There's a simple solution: if you don't want to pay the price, DON'T LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. If I don't agree to your terms, I don't get to eat your cake. But here's the problem: far too many people lie to themselves, pretending that they have a "right" to free music, or to free software, or to free...whatever. This is a lie. We have no such right. What we have are a bunch of spoiled people, acting like children and throwing tantrums (and doing evil) when they don't get their way.
This is a joke, right?
Having just skimmed the Manifesto again, I'd have to say that this is probably not a joke. Instead, I'd have to say that RMS is a utopian loon with nary a clue about economics or human nature. His appeal to the Golden Rule (a rule grounded not in any ravings by that babbler Kant -- contra RMS -- but rather in the Bible) is preposterous.
The net result of this "system" (to be very generous) of Stallman's would be the eradication of productivity in whatever sphere it was applied. Music -- gone. Books -- gone. Art -- gone. Software -- gone. This is simple economics. If people are not allowed to profit from *their* property -- and the code I write *IS* my property, even if someone else could duplicate the algorithms (NOTE: patents and copyrights are VERY different) -- then they will have NO incentive to share that property with others. Period. The inevitable consequence is reduced supply. This is what ALWAYS happens with price controls (and the RMS "system" amounts to nothing more than price controls): if the official "price" is lower than what producers are willing to accept in exchange for their goods, they will NOT sell.
Supply and demand. It's simple. At zero price, there are *very* few suppliers.
The GPL would not be necessary without copyright law!
The GPL exists to protect your rights to use, share, and modify software. Without copyright, no one could stop you from using or sharing; and if pay-per-copy were eliminated, there'd be no motive for authors not to share their source code, and as more people understand the necessity of open source for quality, every reason for them to do so.
Your argument for the destruction of copyright is intrinsically immoral. It would mean that the producer of a given piece of software, or of a given song, or of a given book, would NOT own what he has produced, because he would NOT be able to retain control of it (unless he kept it as his personal secret, to the deprivation of the rest of us).
In short, your viewpoint would result in the THEFT of these products from those who created them. So what incentive have they to continue producing? ANSWER: NONE WHATSOEVER.
You may suggest that they can earn money by "supporting" their product. Fine. Let's consider this.
How does a musician "support" his music? How does an author "support" his short stories or books? How does an artist "support" his painting? By "debugging" it?
More importantly, who are you to tell a producer how he may use what he creates? It belongs to him, not you! This is why your argument is intrinsically Marxist: you deny that the producer owns what he creates.
Is this why Larry allows the use of the Artistic License with Perl? Have you ever read *anything* that Linus has said about the licensing of the kernel?
You're a troll, plain and simple.
You have demolished your own credibility. You don't even know how copyright works, and yet you have the temerity to babble about the credibility of those who hold copyrights on useful software.
For your information, O Ignorant One, no lawyer is required for a published work to be copyrighted. A published work is protected by copyright as soon as it is produced.
More, this lame response of yours fails to address the point I made: that one who holds copyright holder on popular software has far more prima facie credibility in speaking about the importance of copyright than does a slashdotter who doesn't. Of course, they may damage that credibility by how they use it, but your weak criticisms (which amount to nothing more than "I disagree with them, so they have no credibility!" Lame) do nothing but destroy your *own* credibility.
Only an idiot would purposefully saddle themselves with Richard Stallmann's viral piece of communist manifesto. Personally I perfer the BSD license
Then you are not as large a hypocrite as others. Good for you. Nevertheless, to the extent that the BSD license differs from releasing a published work to the public domain, it too depends 100% upon the validity of copyright.
Unless you expect producers to release their products solely and exclusively into the public domain, copyright is essential. And if this is really what you think, then you are a nut who wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Have a nice supper, but don't complain about your poverty!
They are monstrous hypocrites who use Napster to steal while raving maniacally about the importance of the GPL.
Because, unlike the average /.er, Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Wall have created copyrighted works that are enormously popular.
Are you a GNU zealot? You do realize, don't you, that the GPL depends solely and completely upon the validity of copyright? That without copyright, the GPL is so much toilet paper?
These people may be able to program, but they're not lawyers, they're not politicians and they're just not qualified to share their views on this subject.
And I suppose that you *are* somehow more qualified than they to offer a viewpoint? Has it escaped your notice that any copyright holder has an obvious interest in seeing the copyright protections of all copyrighted works upheld? Today, the RIAA; tomorrow the GPL. You can't have it both ways.
The program refused to build the helpfile. It complained that the RTF was invalid.
Thinking that this was odd, I went to Microsoft Word 97, wrote the file there, saved it as RTF, and tried this brand new file in the same Microsoft-produced helpfile creator.
AGAIN the program complained that the RTF was invalid.
So I moved to my Linux box, fired up Applix 4.3.7, typed in the file, saved it as RTF, moved it to the Windows box, and tried again -- this time with an RTF file produced in a NON-Microsoft product.
The helpfile built without a single complaint!
IF Microsoft had an otherwise good (I'm not saying perfect) record about security, and IF they didn't ALREADY have a reputation for lying to their customers ("no bugs" in Windows 2000??? "no significant bugs" in any Microsoft products???), I might be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
They're lying so as to minimize the PR damage they are going to suffer for this, coming as it does on the heels of ANOTHER Microsoft design choice that was grossly stupid (I'm speaking, of course, of ILOVEYOU).
Do you believe everything Bill tells you? How much do they pay for that Astroturf campaign?
Yes, like just two weeks ago when ILOVEYOU was out, right? MS had the patch out "before serious exploits," right?
Let's be real here. Microsoft's concern for security could fit in one thimble along with Dilbert's enthusiasm. If they really cared about it they would have fixed the "every-user-is-root" problem years and years and years ago.
No company that says their latest software release will be bug-free (while having a list of 63,000 bugs they knew about at release time) can be taken seriously when it comes to security. No company that has to be goaded by bad press into fixing Outlook Express can be taken seriously. No company that denies that its customers care about bugs can be taken seriously.
They thought this was a good idea.
It shows the depths of the contempt in which they hold their customers' security.
They compound their arrogance, their hubris with the nonsensical and tyrannical notion that they SHOULD tell the rest of us how we ought to live. It is not that their views have any substantial moral force to which we ought to listen; it is simply that they believe that they are better than everyone else.
Poppycock. Their arrogance betrays their commonness.
While other things may be important to capitalism, private property is the sine qua non of capitalism: In its absence there is no capitalism at all.
if you oppose murder for hire, then by your own logic, I don't see how you can call yourself a capitalist.
Neither a free society nor capitalism can exist in a moral vacuum. Among other things, the right to private property must be protected -- no one has the right to steal your stuff, right? No one has the right to destroy my property, either. So how absurd would it be for us to suppose that private property is protected but our lives are not?
Can contracts survive where honesty and truthfulness are not valued? Of course not! You think you're being clever, but you're really not.
Simply because somthing CAN be used illegally is not grounds for making that something illegal.
This amazingly irrelevant statement is attached to a quote that you cleverly ripped from its context. What I said had to do specifically with the poster's professed willingness to violate copyright while at the same time being upset about not having legal access to MP3.com. A person who is willing to violate copyright is obviously not particularly interested in what is legal, so it's pretty silly to pretend to be all worked up about not having "legal" access to something. If you will look you will see that this is exactly how the poster understood it, and it was in fact my intent. I'm sorry you didn't get it.
Notwithstanding all this, your point is completely irrelevant in the present context. I never said anything that could be reasonably interpreted to dispute this point. The problem with MP3.com is that it is SURELY being used for illegal purposes -- it is not a question of taking away something that merely *might* be used illegally. If MP3.com can demonstrate that their system is designed and secured so as to effectively REQUIRE that its users actually own the CDs for which they're getting MP3's, then I can't think of any particular reason why I'd be bothered by them. Lastly, to borrow your gun analogy -- I assert that law enforcement would be fully within their rights to shut down a gun shop where illegal arms trafficking was occurring right alongside legitimate firearms sales. Such an event does NOT represent an attack upon legitimate ownership of guns. In the same way -- if MP3.com is trafficking in pirated music right alongside legitimate music, I have NO problem with law enforcement shutting them down. This does not mean that either they or someone else is not free to act within the law in a manner that is perhaps even substantially similar to the way MP3.com does business now. It does mean that thievery will not be tolerated. Perhaps the MP3.com folk mean no harm -- but then they have an obligation to ensure that no harm is done using their systems, just as gun dealers can't just turn a blind eye to the law as it pertains to guns.
If I infringe your copyright, you suffer no loss.
This is simply ignorant. If you infringe my copyright I lose the compensation -- of whatever form -- that I would otherwise have enjoyed had you honored my copyright. If enough people engage in this practice, I might decide that I am not being sufficiently compensated to bother with the costs associated with producing my copyrighted goods -- and then YOU lose, too.
In the long run the result of the abandonment of copyright is this: less of the goods that were formerly protected by copyright. Why is this? Because fewer people will agree to share their art with others for reduced or zero compensation.
Lack of gain != loss
You fail to understand economics. Lack of gain == reduced income (reduced by the amount you failed to pay me). If this is done by enough people, my income approaches zero. At some point prior to that I will surely conclude that I am not making enough money in this business, so I may as well go on to something else. Result: YOU lose production of a good you previously valued enough to at least steal.
have I stolen from Ford by buying a Chevy?
Ford's income is reduced by the amount of money that you spent on a Chevy rather than on a Ford. If enough people do this, Ford goes out of business.
On top of all this, you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between patents and copyright. You need to fix this. The two are different. Copyright does NOT extend to the ideas presented in a work. It extends to the particular expression of those ideas -- namely, they are MY words put together in (hopefully entertaining or educational) sentences of MY construction. The ideas themselves are fair game. This is very different from patents, which are all about ideas: I can't make my own version of a cotton gin -- even one that's better -- as long as Eli Whitney's patent on the gin is in force. Differing expressions of the same idea are forbidden by patents, but not by copyright.
I'm getting pretty sick of the histrionics of people who claim copyright infringement is theft.
Judging from your post, we don't have a monopoly on histrionics. :-)
I believe you ought to extend the same courtesy to the music industry. And just as it is up to you to decide what is "proper" compensation for your work, so too it is up to them to determine what is "proper" for theirs.
Of course, market forces may agree or disagree with both the music industry's and your assessment of whether that compensation you want is actually "proper" or not. I'm guessing you are gainfully employed, so the market seems to agree with you.
And in the same way, the market seems to agree that the music industry is not overcharging for their products -- whatever you or I may think.
By what standard do you arrive at the conclusion that present music prices are "immoral"?
I disagree completely. The two are linked. It's not a direct, one-to-one correllation, but the connection is obvious and compelling. One need only look at one or two pathological cases to see my point. In the Soviet Union no one had private property at all -- and no freedom at all. The same situation exists in Communist China, but with a twist: The government has permitted some capitalism to exist, but they now are struggling to keep the lid on the liberating force that private property actually is. Arguably the circumstance is more complex than this caricature, but it is simply undeniable that prior to the introduction of a tiny measure of capitalism into the PRC there was *far* less freedom (and even less impetus to liberty) than there is today.
It's just that the blind assumption "the USA is the most capitalist country, and the most free, therefore capitalism = freedom" should be challenged.
I did not use the US as an example. I do not think that we are particularly free today; certainly we have lost a great deal of our liberty. I believe that it is no mere coincidence that the restrictions on the free market that we see today (contra the situation during the 1800s) have developed at the same time as the restrictions on our liberty.
The unfortunate side effect is that big corporations with a lot of money can force the little guy with no money into a legal settlement, simply because they can afford the outrageous legal fees that the little guy cannot. I'll admit that that is more a problem of the legal system than the capitalist system.
That is correct. The legal system is rigged to a very great extent against the little guy now. But the justice or injustice of the court system doesn't seem to me to have any necessary connection to the economic system, except as it enforces (or fails to enforce) the existing laws relating to private property.
Of course, the fact that there are defects in the legal system does not in any way change the fact that copyright is a legitimate and necessary feature of a capitalist and free society...and that the record companies are therefore perfectly within their rights in attacking MP3.com -- until or unless it is is demonstrated that MP3.com has not infringed upon the copyrights held by the record companies.
Are you completely lacking in knowledge of history? All you need to do is look at the state of classical music today for your answer. There is nowhere close to a large enough market for this music to produce employment for as many symphonies as there are. That is why the VAST majority of them are subsidized. In the past it was no different.
Producing art for free is not a growth industry. The costs are too great, and someone is going to have to pay.
Do you really think that the only way for an artist to make money is to "product-ize" their work and stamp out copies to sell?
Please, deliver me from my ignorance. Tell me exactly how -- without copyright -- we can have the same quantity and quality of music we presently enjoy. Put up or shut up, friend. Show us how it can be done, now that you've insisted that it can be done.
No offense, but I won't hold my breath.
Before copyright artists had patrons who subsidized their work by providing a living for them. Those who had no patron didn't live well (to say the least). Your "argument" (cough) is no refutation of anything I said.
You assume that controlling data is the only way to make money off of it. The Free Software movement shows that that's not true.
In the first place Richard Stallman isn't exactly living large on the return he has made from the software he has written. In the second place you falsely assume that GPL'ed software is not controlled. It IS. The GPL is founded wholly and solely upon the legitimacy of copyright. Absent strongly enforced copyright there is NOTHING to prevent a commercial entity from sucking up all this 'free' code and creating a new and proprietary and fully binary software product under their own label and with no mention of any indebtedness to anyone else in the world.
Do you GPL your code? Would you like Microsoft or any other corporation to take your code and use it as they see fit without any regard for your wishes? If you don't care, then why not place your code in the public domain? If you do care, then quit being a hypocrite and give the musician the same right to do what he wants with his product -- even if that means selling it to those big bad record companies you loathe.
I do feel that I have a fundamental right to any piece of non-private (not personal / financial) data, yes.
What a fine and self-serving definition of "private" you have. So would you mind if I came by your house and took your car? It's not "private" by your definition.
You don't think that there are financial costs associated with the production of music? You don't think that artists should be compensated for these costs?
denying it to me is creating artificial scarcity.
You really don't understand economics, do you? Music is intrinsically a scarce good because its supply is NOT unlimited.
you must be consfusing Free software with Open Source
No, I am NOT. Why don't YOU go read this, where the FSF says (among other things) "we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." Further, I believe that if you ask Mr. Stallman you will find that he is opposed to copyright violations because he knows that the GPL stands upon this foundation ALONE. You will not find arguments for software piracy (or any other form of piracy) at www.gnu.org.
If you're going to look to Stallman for inspiration for your loony ideas about music, be sure you look at everything he writes first -- not just the parts you like.
Then I honestly don't think you can call yourself a capitalist at all. This is fundamental to capitalism: the right to private property. If you dispute the legitimacy of copyright, you implicitly dispute the legitimacy of private property.
I don't believe that these money grubbing record labels should have the right to add a surcharge on ignorance.
How nice of you to decide for me whether I can or cannot pay "too much" for a product. Value (economically speaking) is subjective: the value of a thing is what *I* am willing to give up in order to obtain it. On the other hand, for you the value of that thing is what YOU are willing to give up for it. This fact is hidden to a great extent by the efficiency of the pricing system in this country, but it is no less true.
Furthermore, how is it that you think that you have a right to dictate to anyone the terms under which they will sell what they own? After all, this is the force of what you are saying here when you say you think they ought to have their ownership rights restricted.
This sounds noble, but it is unworkable. It cannot reasonably be applied to economics generally. Are you making a special case for hatred of music companies? That's rather arbitrary. Especially for something that is so trivial as music. Tell me, do you have similar loathing for the long distance companies that charge more than rock-bottom? Do you violate the law to obtain long distance service as a form of "protest"? Or cable TV?
I don't believe they should be allowed to deny the rights of others to provide an alternative to their collective monopoly.
They have no power whatsoever to control the distribution of music for which they do not own the distribution rights. This means that any independent band may set up its own website and sell their music by the download if they wish. No one can prevent it.
On the other hand, no one has the right to subvert copyrights.
By shutting down MP3.com, napster, and other such legally-iffy institutions, these people are denying my rights to use them, if in the off chance I wish to use them legally.
Later in your post you practically admit that you do NOT use these things legally, when you say "I choose to willfully do my best to fight that. Yes, that includes breaking copyright law." So your alleged concerns about having "legal access" to MP3.com seem rather empty.
Setting that aside, however, I honestly don't see how you can possibly demonstrate that MP3.com can protect copyright, short of requiring its users to actually send in their own CDs. As it stands, a user can simply claim to own a disc, but there is no way to verify that.
Yes, that includes breaking copyright law.
Are you a programmer? Tell me, do you apply these same "scruples" (ahem) to your code?
These costs are substantially lower when the citizenry respects the property rights of the copyright holder. When people have a massive disrespect for property of others -- as is the case in the U.S. today -- then indeed the costs are greater -- but only because the people have become morally degraded.
The whole apparatus of copyright registration,
There is no such thing. A work is copyrighted immediately upon being produced. There is no additional "registration" involved in enjoying the benefits of copyright protection -- at least not here in the United States (I have no idea what the situation is like in other countries). Publishers will register their products with the Library of Congress (in the United States) because they perceive there is an additional benefit to doing so -- but it has nothing to do with copyright. Look around you -- do you REALLY think that all these millions of copyrighted materials have been vetted by some clerk in Washington/London/Sao Paolo/wherever?
investigation and prosecution of criminal copyright cases, courts to hear civil and criminal copyright cases, prison cells for people convicted of criminal infringement, is a substantial cost.
Yes. These are costs of a free society where private property is officially respected. If the citizenry does not itself respect copyright, then these costs will be high -- but this lack of respect by the public cannot reasonably be said to be a virtue. It is in fact a gross hypocrisy (see how people yelp when THEIR stuff is stolen!)
If the end result is not a significant benefit to the public, then Copyright should be abolished.
Copyright is massively beneficial to the public. They would not have all this music to listen to without it. They would not have all these books to read without it. They would not have movies to watch and software to use without copyright.
The two are really inseparable though different. There is no true liberty where there is no right to private property, and there is positively no capitalist system where private property rights are snuffed out by the state.
Free enterprise often implies the ability to restrict other people's freedom.
The only "restriction" free enterprise places is on the fact that a man has the right to control his own property, and that another man does not have the right to coerce him into disposing of it in ways he does not want. But that works both ways: everyone's property is protected.
The American national pastime of sueing everyone over every little thing is an illustration of this.
The litigiousness of American society cannot reasonably be said to be a necessary feature of capitalism. The fact that this litigiousness has only appeared in the last century demonstrates this. The U.S. was far more capitalistic in the 19th century, in that there were far fewer restrictions upon how a man might use his private property. It is only with the growth of additional restrictions upon that freedom that we have seen the explosion of lawsuits in this country. I don't believe that the demise of capitalism and the rise of the lawsuit are particularly linked to each other, but certainly litigiousness is not in any way a feature of capitalism.
So how much money would an artist make if there was no copyright protection on his work? Answer: approximately US$0.00. There would be no economic incentive for anyone to pay for music that they could obtain for free. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are no friend of "starving artists" if you really think that their interests are better served by abandoning copyright. If they are dissatisfied with the amount of money they receive from the record companies, then they have a simple solution: don't sign unsatisfactory contracts with record companies. You seem to be suffering from the misconception that these "starving artists" were somehow coerced into giving up control of their music to the record companies. Nothing could be further from the truth -- especially in an age where "starving artists" can use the Internet to distribute their music themselves.
But if we abandon copyright on music, then they can't even make money THAT way, can they?
Second, I have to pay for music.
Poor poor pitiful you. You do not realize that there are costs associated with creating music? You do not think that music creators have a right to be compensated for the expenses associated with making music? You think you have some sort of fundamental right to free and unlimited access to music created by others?
If this is true, I weep for your country.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
Richard Stallman is hopefully not so blind as to fail to realize that it is copyright that gives his GPL any force whatsoever. Remove copyright from GPL'ed software and what do you have? You have software that can be made proprietary by anyone who wishes to do so. If you GPL your software, you had better realize this fact. If you do realize this fact, then you need to abandon the hypocrisy of opposing copyright on music.
Lastly, unless I'm quite mistaken Mr. Stallman is NOT opposed to the idea of paying for software. He simply wants access to the code. So I really don't think you can go looking to the FSF for a defense of abandoning copyright OR "free music."
You, sir, have not the slightest clue about the subject.
Don't you remember basic economics? A written or recorded work is private property: it belongs to the person who produced it. There were costs associated with its production: time, money, effort, and so forth. If the owner of that private property wishes to share it with others, he has the fundamental right to do so under conditions that are acceptable to him. NO ONE has the right to dictate to him the conditions under which he will do so. If he wishes to be paid in money for his work, that is his privilege. If he wishes to give it away, that is his right as well.
Copyright is NOT "just like normal patents." This is a gross misunderstanding. A patent prevents others from using/profiting from an idea that a patent holder had. Copyright protects the particular expression found in the copyrighted material. You and I can both write a book about the postage stamps of Bolivia, and unless we plagiarize each other we are not violating copyright. On the other hand, if you invent a new method or tool for tilling the soil in the hilly areas of Bolivia and then patent it, I am enjoined by law from both copying your idea AND from coming up with something on my own that is substantially similar to your patented work. This is vastly different from copyright.
Lastly, it is copyright which is the fundamental protection behind all software. Unless you're a warez boy and just don't care, you had better realize that no software is safe if copyrights are abandoned.
Copyright is NOT "anti-capitalist." That is the most preposterous thing I've read today.
This occurred to me after I posted. It is a brilliant point, and the pirates here who crave "free music" would be singing a different tune if it were GPL'ed software that was at stake.
Copyright, boys and girls, is the ONLY thing that gives the GPL any force whatsoever. Take away copyright, and you can kiss your "free as in speech" software goodbye. It's time to get over your crass hypocrisy and realize that copyright is fundamentally important in a free society.
Or are you really communists after all?
Make your MP3s or CDs yourself, and don't give them away to others. Honestly, this isn't that hard. Purchasing an LP does not mean you were granted any rights to some "perpetual upgrade." You bought copies of copyrighted material. You do not have any claim on anything other than the material you purchased. You do not have the right to subvert copyright because technology has left your former purchases behind.
This is tantamount to saying you have a right to steal a car because you once bought a bicycle. Sorry -- it doesn't hold water.
Copyright is abusive? Immoral? Ho ho. To the contrary, it is fundamentally capitalist. You who claim to be in favor of free enterprise are rather shortsighted if you really have a problem with copyright.
Producing music or books has associated costs. Copyright ensures that those who bear those costs also have an opportunity to benefit from producing these goods for the rest of us. It protects those who create music and books from plagiarism (among other things).
The only alternative to copyrighted music is: much, much less music available to enjoy.
I am not here intending to defend the record companies. Their products are grossly overpriced, in my opinion -- but note: they cannot charge more than people are willing to pay, because they cannot force people to buy their products. The fact that I refuse to spend $15 on a CD is irrelevant, because an awful lot of people are perfectly willing to do so.
To the extent that MP3's are used in pirating music, McCartney or any other owner of copyrighted music is absolutely and completely within his rights to seek to protect what is lawfully his.
If you ignore copyright -- if you make or own pirate copies of copyrighted music -- you are implicitly denying that a private property owner has the right to do what he wishes with what he owns within the bounds of the law. You are thereby undermining your claim to be a capitalist, and you are similarly undermining your right to be outraged when someone steals something out of your house.
You're free to make MP3s from CDs you own yourself -- just don't go trafficking in pirated goods.