> In other words: Programmers will no longer
> be able to independently make a living selling
> software they've written. They will always
> have to be hired guns who are dependent on some
> employer.
There is no "Right to make a living however you damned well please". Just because you can, under the current system, make a living in some way does not mean you have some right to continue doing it indefinitly.
There would still be the ability to write software and sell support contracts.
> Of course. Otherwise, in the absence of a
> totally moral society (which is pretty obvious),
> you would have people driving 120 mph on the
> freeway, running red lights, chopping down
> trees in the city park, etc. As long as there
> are selfish and unethical people,
> unfortunately we will have police.
Excuse me... did I not say that there are certainly acceptable and justified uses of such "Threats of force"? You seem to totally ignore that. Yes, as I said, there are plenty of good and just reasons to have these threats of force. Listing them is irrelavent.
The bottom line of all this boils down to "Why do we have copyright?".
Is it, as I believe (and as is stated within the relevant laws of the land), that it is a "limited Monopoly" granted to encourage works. That authors have no intrinsic rights to their creations (except the right to claim the title of author) and that the whole of copyright law is based simply on our societies want to encourage the production of works.
Or is it, as you seem to believe (I am really not trying to build a straw man, so please correct me if I am wrong - as you will see, I am not going to tear into this statment of your viewpoint), that authors have intrinsic rights to their work, and deserve compensation for these rights, and that the law protects those rights.
These two view points are wildly different in their basic assumptions. There is no way (or at least no way that I can see) to reconcile these two viewpoints. In mine, copyright is wholly optional. In yours, it is a defense of a persons basic rights.
I honestly believe that when I write a program and someone else gets a copy of it, that they have a god given right (ok, I am an atheist, so not "god given" - I can't think of a better phrase at 16:41 on a friday) to modify the program, and to share it with their friends. It is my solem belief that this is their right, and I have no right to stop them, and furthermore that this applies to ANY "Intellectual Work" that I do (be it poetry or music)
> But it's not just art! Anything that involves
> creating IP gets trashed!
Throughout this entire conversation I have been talking specifically about copyright and have even said so over and over. The example which you give involves patents, which are a completely different beast. This is why I say over and over "IP doesn't exist". It doesn't. They are seprate concepts, deserving of seprate discussions. I never once (in this argument) said anything about patents being abolished (they need work yes, but I never brought them up as they are tangential to the original issue)
> Please don't try to back out of having to
> address the gaping holes in your proposal by
> saying "we're not going to agree."
Our differences in opinion, as I have stated above, apear to stem from fundamental world view differences.
-Steve
(Who admits he can be a bit of a hothead early on in arguments and is trying not to be)
> By getting all defensive, you conveniently
> avoid needing to respond to the points made.
Your right. Its just frustrating when all of the points are so full of loaded phrasology. The problem with this discussion is that its almost impossible to avoid loaded phrases. There arn't any unloaded ones. (its also part of the problem with carrying on multiple arguments at once - with different people)
As to law and force....
What gives the law power?
The answer is simple. Police. Armed men with guns. ANY law is a threat by the governmnet. It is a statment that "Here is a rule. If you break it, the police are authorized to stop you".
The seat upon which the power of government rests is the physical force that it can exert through its army of police. Every law contains that implicit threat. Every "Cease and desist" letter contains the implicit threat that "Ignore this and the police will be knocking at your door"
The question is, when is the threat of force legitimate? There are plenty of cases where it is. Murder, rape, one could easily put together a list of "cut and dry" examples.
Copyright is not one of them.
In fact, Copyright law is not about "protection of rights". It never has been. It is a limited monopoly granted to an author specifically to encourage works. Not because they deserve it, but because we hope it will encourage them to make more. Feel free to read the US Constitution and copyright laws if you have any doubt about its intentions. (I can't speak for other countries, I havn't read their constitutions or copyright laws)
Authorship is not ownership, not even under current copyright law, not even after the extensions to the law that some major multinationals purchased.
> I have no idea if you are the kind of person
> who would go distribute Windows on street
> corners -
I would never be so cruel as to distribute windows to people in any form whatsoever. (I just couldn't resist that one)
Of course, of all things I ESPECIALLY think that software should not be copyrightable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the practitioners of an arts. However, programming has practical use and thus will always be needed. The art doesn't need copyright to flourish. Programmers can always get commissioned jobs.
> Only under the terms of what you're calling a
> monopoly (and what I would simply refer to as
> IP ownership)
I call it a monopoly because the people who originally instituted it called it a monopoly. That is what copyright is!
Need I remind you that IP doesn't exist? Not in any legal sense. It really doesn't. What we are talking about is copyright.
Copyright, by its very definition, is a "limited monopoly" given to the creator of a work. It is given NOT because the author owns the work, or has some "god given right" to it, but to encourage people to produce art and other socially useful things. It is social contract by the people, with the authors saying "We will cede our rights to copy your works to you for a limited time".
Technology has rapidly reached the point where this is no longer feasable, or needed. Without copyright, true, it would be hard, if not impossible, to work as an "author" (unless you worked for a newspaper). You would need a day job. It would mean that only the best would really see ALOT of money form what they produce.
I don't think thats so bad. I don't want the Arts to be thought of as an "Industry". Sure art is socially productive and good, but, not so socially productive that we should encourage and reward it as much or more than a "normal job".
> I agree completely. But in practice, the first
> step is that someone's lawyer sends out a cease
> and desist letter.
Which is just a restatment of the law. The force behind the cease and desist letter is still the Armed Men with gun who will come by if it is ignored. THEY are the seat upon which all legal power rests.
In the end, we are just going to disagree. I think the current system was a fine thing when it was implimented, but some people are just taking it too far. They see the limited monopoly that they were granted and want more of it. They want the public to give up more and more rights - or for longer and longer periods. Its time to end it.
Humans need art (I am of course including music in art). We will find ways to make it work. More art isn't always better. In fact, I think we are at the point where we have hit that point. We don't need the government to encourage art anymore.
You want to claim the right to constrain other peoples behaviour because you authored something.
You want to claim that something that you created, and sold to someone else is still yours? Nonsense I say.
This is silly. We are not going to agree. You obviously have no problem with the use of "threats of force" to turn information into "Property", no matter how unlike property it really is.
So in short, you continue calling me a theif (or actually supporter of theifs, I havn't actuaslly engaged in "sharing" of the sort I advocate in quite a while), and I will continue saying that copyright law is unneeded and immoral and serves only to keep large corperations in power and take away our rights as individuals.
Oh, and I will occasionally throw in a call to do away with the entire statist capitalist system and replace it with some form of anarcho-socialism. You can feel free to call me a "pinko commie leftist" anytime you like.
And I will continue releasing all of the software and other things that I write either under the GPL or some other free license...because I don't believe that I have the right to restrict anyone else from shareing and using my works. (and one of these days I will get around to actually putting some more "works" up on my web page... so much to do...why the hell am I arguing with you?)
As most of the rest of your reply amounts to thinly veiled personal attacks via misrepresenting my views and a few small straw men, I don't feel any need to reply to them.
> the moral problem is, why should some people
> pay because they're honest and not have the
> benefit of a system that forces everyone else
> to make the choice between paying and having
> the product, or not paying and therefore not
> getting to have their own copy of the music.
Exactly.
"System that forces". Therein lies my problem.
Should the system forcibly stop murderers? Absolutly! Should it stop rapists? No doubt! Should it stop con artists and other committers of fraud? sure. Muggers and theives? definitly!
As for forcibly stoping "Unauthorized Copiers". No Im sorry, I can't support that. Its a crime with no victem. Noone is hurt. The only way you can even imagine "damage" is to talk about some imaginary "value" or "money that a person didn't get".
I am sorry, but I just do NOT think that it is EVER legitimate to use the threat of force by the government (which is what a law is - a threat of force) to solve general social or economic problems (like artists desire to be compensated). The threat of force should ONLY be used to stop the use of illegitimate force.
Lets take the example where Alice authors Book (Book being th ename of the work - whether it is a song, peice of software, or real book is irrelevant here).
Carl buys a copy of Book from Alice. Carl enjoys book, and sees his friend David. He makes a copy of Book for David, because he thinks his friend David will also enjoy Book.
David is indeed getting "value" from Book. What is that value? Maybe it helps him get his work done, maybe it provides entertainment.
The law says that Alices copyright has been violated. (actually depending on the medium that could debatably be fair use, but thats a topic fo r the lawyers). However, I don't see how this transaction involves Alice at all...nothing of hers was involved.
Under the Doctrine of IP, she should be the only one allowed to make copies, and thus profit off a monopoly. She is the only one who can produce this product (which is really just copies of something she already made).
How could she produce works and be compensated without this monopoly? I don't really see that as my problem to solve. There are many proposals for this already in the world.
She could do it for commission! Thats certainly viable for software authors (and sometimes musicians - in fact its exactly how many like Bach made their money), and painters, sculptors etc (possibly less so for book authors).
There are even some experiemnts going on by novel authors in ways of distributing content so that they don't need copyright enforcement to make money (they have been mentioned on slashdot).
As to a few other things you said... When I say "Armed soldiers" I mean it THATS WHAT POLICE ARE! We often forget that in our daily lives. Sending police after someone is not something that should EVER be taken lightly, and its something that I think people need to be reminded of.
As for fair use... I don't know if I can find the article (it was referenced from slashdot a while back) it was one of the napster cases where it was stated that once a person has copy of a song, fair use applies and they may listen to it all they want - even if they obtained the song via illegal distribution. The only reason I remember this is that it struck me as bizzare that lawyers on both sides of the case (one side being RIAA lawyers) agreed.
I am not advocating taking away anyones "right to to decide whether I want to be compensated for my work."
I am advocating getting rid of government imposed restrictions on copying. Now, if that makes it harder for you to be compensated for you work, you are free to find a new way to attain compensation - one that does NOT require an army of armed soldiers (called police) to change the behaviour of your fellow citizens.
As I said previously (was it in this thread?) a law is a statment by the government that "If you do X, our soldiers are authorized to stop you". I do not believe that copping is wrong.
As I have said, "Unauthorized Copying" is not stealing by MY definition of stealing. Information is not property, and I don't care how much jumping up and down and complaining about "wanting compensation" you do, it does not have the same features as real property, its not property.
As for compensation, I have already said that I think it is wholly right that artisans be compensated for their creations. I am willing to compensate them to encourage good work.
What I am not willing to do is to support copyright law. People share information and thats good. Information is not property, and copying information is not stealing. Not even the law, which I have stated I disagree with, calls it stealing.
In fact, its quite clear, from looking at the law, that an illegally obtained copy is just that, illegally obtained. Not illegal to posess or use. Fair Use still applies! How would you correlate this with this concept of "Information as Property"? Of course, the entire concept of "fair use" seems to contradict the doctrine of "IP" now doesn't it?
Would you advocate that personal ice making machines and freezers should have been outlawed because of what they did to the ice harvesting industry? (just think, a person can go out to a lake now, and cut ice from the frozen lake, and noone will compensate them for their work...a whole industry was wiped out!)
There is a simple fact: Humans create things even when there is no profit motive at all. The act of creation, the act of searching and discovery is IN AND OF ITSELF rewarding.
True, there are people who are motivated by profit. However, as far as I can tell (both from my own motivations and the motivations of people that I have talked to) many (if not most) are only motivated by profit when profit is needed. Its only because of the need to pay bills and maintain quality of life that people seek money.
How many times have you seen a person going stir crazy after retiurement? They ahve the urge to work, and often get involved in little projects and building things, for love of working!
The moral problem with copyright (specifically, as I said, IP is a nonsense term that doesn't even have a legal definition) is NOT artisans getting paid for their work. Hell no...I think its great and I would gladly pay an artist or a writter for the enjoyment that I derive from their work.
The moral problem is with government enforced restrictions on copying. Yes, authors should get paid. That does NOT mean that they have ANY right to stop a person from sharing with others.
Whether it is good economically or not is besides the point. A transaction between me and my friend does not concern anyone else. If I hand him a copy of the New Kids on the Block's Greatest Hits (which, sadly, is a real album) it is NOONES buisness but mine and my friends.
I am fundamentally oposed to ANY law that says I can't share information with my friends. Its unenforcable at best, and, in my eyes, morally corrupt.
I will not support the use of armed soldiers to support "restrictions on copying". Its just not right.
Its funny that you keep brionging up pharmasuticals. This is one instance where profit motive definitly works against the people. Sure AZT is great for people with AIDS. Its a good thing. However, profit motive is really a motive to NOT find a cure. Its much much more profitable to develop drugs that keep a person alive and sick, yet alleviate their symptoms. That way you can peddle your drug to them again and again for years.
Much more profitable than actually cureing a disease.
> (Communism, for example, where competition is
> bad, and the government tells you what you
> should be doing with your time and how much
> you should be getting paid for it through
> a central planning authority).
As a person who find the ideas of libertarian socialism (a form of anarchism, or the only real anarchism - depending on who you talk to) I would disagree strongly with this.
While this is often a feature of imposed statist communism, it is certainly not a part of the basic tennets of communism any more than having a stock market is fundamental to capitalism (its a logical extension in some circumstances (possibly most) but not a requirement per se).
> In general (with a couple of exceptions),
> if there is no economic incentive to do
> something, it either doesn't get done, or
> it doesn't get done well.
I will admit I only know a few musicians, and certainly not all musicians are great ones. Economic incentive, while nice, isn't what drives a person to create.
You ask me to offer a way to overcome the problems that "IP" solves (it doesn't solve any, because it doesn't exist, it is legally 3 seprate things that have nothing to do with eachother but PR people like to lump together). I don't claim to be able to.
I am saying that the solution (ie government imposed restriction - via copyright and patent) is fundamentally immoral, and wrong. The ends do NOT justify the means.
If that makes some things that are "good" harder to do, then so be it. If certain production and research happens slower, then so be it.
> The theft of music, regardless of whether the
> artist still has their copy of the song, is
> theft - pure and simple.
It all boils down to this doesn't it?
YOu obviously believe that information can be owned, and that the restrictions of copyright are "right".
So yes, with those fundamental concepts, yes it is pure and simple.
However, I disagree with them. I do not see copyright law as justified or right. I, in fact, think that stopping the free sharing of information (whether or not you are the "author" of that information) is morally wrong and unjustified by ANYTHING (the only exception being a persons personal, private information - like a log in a diary or your Bank account numbers).
From that viewpoint, which is mine, it is not "theft - pure and simple".
Driving over the speed limit is not inherently wrong. I don't think a person deserves to be pulled out by armed soldiers and thrown in a cage for that.
However, Driving recklessly fast (ie too fast for the given road conditions and traffic. Its impossible to put a number on it, sometimes 45 is too fast, sometimes 120 isn't - it all depends on road conditions, and traffic), is endangering the lives of others. So It would be, in my mind, rather justified to have armed soldiers put a stop to the activity before someone else is hurt.
> I mean, God could have been one half-assed
> programmer.
Normally I am not the one to defend any gods, however, I would point out that - all good programmers reuse code. No strike that, all programmers re-use code.
I mean hey, who has written more than "one or two" programs (of any type) and never said "Oh, I had to do something just liek this over in..." and went and grabbed a subroutine?
> I make a living writing software, and I like
> the idea of authors, artists, etc. being able
> to make money from their creations. Someone
> out there give me a solid ethical justification
> for intellectual property restrictions, please.
"It makes money"
As far as I can tell, thats the major ethical argument in favor of IP.
I agree, I like the idea of Artists and Software programmers making their money (or our money, programming is afterall part of my job). However, I think thats possible without IP restrictions (maybe not as much money in some cases, but that doesn't justify the restrictions).
The Only thing that I see as "protected" by these restrictions is the "Publishing Industry". They are useful in what they do but...they are not either authors or end consumers. If the market changes and they are no longer profitable, then they should buck up and get new jobs.
The law, as written - and as advocated by the copyright profiteers, is that if you copy and distribute a copyrighted work without permission, then the government has the right to send armed soldiers (called "police") to your house and to drag you away kicking and screaming to a cage where you are treated like an animal. Is that what normally happens? No. However, if you don't bow to their demands, its an option available to them.
At first they start with threats, then court, then fines, then it would escalate to these more drastic measures. However NO LAW is justified EVER unless these actions by the state that are used to enforce the laws are justified as a response to what has been done.
Simple test. The law says you can't do X. Do you feel that a person who does X deserves to be dragged out of their home by armed soldiers and thrown in a cage?
ANY law that does not fit that test, is an unjust and unethical law.
> I think his point is that you have to
> demonstrate a loss to be stealing. Though I
> don't think that this is neccessarily true
> legally, it does give interesting food for
> thought.
Of course you do!
If you accuse me of stealing TV, and point at my TV, which is the exact same model that you bought, then I can pretty easily counter and prove that I didn't steal it, if you still have your TV.
Stealing isn't about posession, its about loss.
I would ask anyone who thinks that copyright violations is "stealing" to please point me to the section of "copyright law" that uses the word "steal" or "rob" or any of its equivalents. No. Its "Unauthorized copying". "Stealing" is the term used in pamphlets and press releases by lawyers and publishers to push forward the idea of "Intellectual Property" (which is THEIR way of balling up trademarks, patents, copyright and some stuff they just invented ou tof thin air all into one term)
Of course, ive been saying for years that legal system that has grown to the level of complexioty where a person can makle a living as a lawyer, is fundamentally broken.
The entire point of the GPL is to make the concept of "IP" obselete. To, litterally, squash the idea from the public mind.
The GPL depends on copyright, its is, at its very heart, an attempt to hack the copyright system to serve the ends of those who wish to eliminate "IP".
For once, Microsoft was right. The GPL *IS* indeed designed to eliminate IP. That is its stated goal. I, for one, certainly am hopeful that it will be achieved.
Well certainly we can argue the semantics of this ad nauseaum.
My point is that language is defined by usage. Meanings of words change over time (check out the OED if you don't believe me).
I think that the dictionary definition, Mussolini's and evern Trotsky's definitions are all old (at least 50 years for either of them). They are NOT current with real world usage.
Your argument would be more valid if we were talking about "Fascism" which can be more accuratly defined in that manner, but this is the adjective "fascist" which is nowhere near so clear.
If I say "Your fascist actions demand retort", then fascist is modifing "actions". I am saying that your actions are in some way related to what a believer in fascism would do. Its a little more nebulous, as it entails my perceptions of your actions, than actually talking about fascism.
We are standing knee deep in warm wet shit. Rather than try to fix it, we should point over there and say "Look, see they are nose deep in warm wet shit...we should just be happy"?
Its been said a million times but "Correlation is not causation".
We have a very different country than any of those places. Our land is rich in natural resources (probably more so than any other single developed area in the world). The largest portion of our countries development did not happen under the tenticles of some other countries imperialism.
(where the standard mode for colonies always seemd to be "Suck em dry for the good of the motherland")
Fascist is an adjective. You gave the definition of the noun fascism (actually, fascist is also a noun, when it refers to a person who supports fascism - however, in context, it was used as an adjective).
It is often used, by english speakers, toapply to anything that promotes "centralization of authority", or supporting the supression of dissenting opinions.
Also remember, dictionaries are not authoritative. They are an attempt to document common usage, they do not define common usage. As such, their definitions tend to lag behind real world usage.
Depending on how its implimented, it will eventually mean the death of publishing. If it were to catch on, then there is no need to have a printing press...it brings publishing to the realm of the author.
I predict, that if books go away (I don't think they will, partially just because - its nice haveing a personal library of selected books - I have one).
However, the only functions that will become important are editors (someone needs to proof the book) and marketers. Actual "publishing" would no longer have to be in the hands of people who own presses. Authors could deliver their works directly to sales houses.
There will always be people who prefer a real book over electronic ones. Its the whole feel. The whole "I put it on my bookshelf and there it is". The ability to hand a book to a friend and say "Hey, I think you will enjoy this".
Slashdot Mirror
> In other words: Programmers will no longer
> be able to independently make a living selling
> software they've written. They will always
> have to be hired guns who are dependent on some
> employer.
There is no "Right to make a living however you damned well please". Just because you can, under the current system, make a living in some way does not mean you have some right to continue doing it indefinitly.
There would still be the ability to write software and sell support contracts.
> Of course. Otherwise, in the absence of a
> totally moral society (which is pretty obvious),
> you would have people driving 120 mph on the
> freeway, running red lights, chopping down
> trees in the city park, etc. As long as there
> are selfish and unethical people,
> unfortunately we will have police.
Excuse me... did I not say that there are certainly acceptable and justified uses of such "Threats of force"? You seem to totally ignore that. Yes, as I said, there are plenty of good and just reasons to have these threats of force. Listing them is irrelavent.
The bottom line of all this boils down to "Why do we have copyright?".
Is it, as I believe (and as is stated within the relevant laws of the land), that it is a "limited Monopoly" granted to encourage works. That authors have no intrinsic rights to their creations (except the right to claim the title of author) and that the whole of copyright law is based simply on our societies want to encourage the production of works.
Or is it, as you seem to believe (I am really not trying to build a straw man, so please correct me if I am wrong - as you will see, I am not going to tear into this statment of your viewpoint), that authors have intrinsic rights to their work, and deserve compensation for these rights, and that the law protects those rights.
These two view points are wildly different in their basic assumptions. There is no way (or at least no way that I can see) to reconcile these two viewpoints. In mine, copyright is wholly optional. In yours, it is a defense of a persons basic rights.
I honestly believe that when I write a program and someone else gets a copy of it, that they have a god given right (ok, I am an atheist, so not "god given" - I can't think of a better phrase at 16:41 on a friday) to modify the program, and to share it with their friends. It is my solem belief that this is their right, and I have no right to stop them, and furthermore that this applies to ANY "Intellectual Work" that I do (be it poetry or music)
> But it's not just art! Anything that involves
> creating IP gets trashed!
Throughout this entire conversation I have been talking specifically about copyright and have even said so over and over. The example which you give involves patents, which are a completely different beast. This is why I say over and over "IP doesn't exist". It doesn't. They are seprate concepts, deserving of seprate discussions. I never once (in this argument) said anything about patents being abolished (they need work yes, but I never brought them up as they are tangential to the original issue)
> Please don't try to back out of having to
> address the gaping holes in your proposal by
> saying "we're not going to agree."
Our differences in opinion, as I have stated above, apear to stem from fundamental world view differences.
-Steve
(Who admits he can be a bit of a hothead early on in arguments and is trying not to be)
> By getting all defensive, you conveniently
> avoid needing to respond to the points made.
Your right. Its just frustrating when all of the points are so full of loaded phrasology. The problem with this discussion is that its almost impossible to avoid loaded phrases. There arn't any unloaded ones. (its also part of the problem with carrying on multiple arguments at once - with different people)
As to law and force....
What gives the law power?
The answer is simple. Police. Armed men with guns. ANY law is a threat by the governmnet. It is a statment that "Here is a rule. If you break it, the police are authorized to stop you".
The seat upon which the power of government rests is the physical force that it can exert through its army of police. Every law contains that implicit threat. Every "Cease and desist" letter contains the implicit threat that "Ignore this and the police will be knocking at your door"
The question is, when is the threat of force legitimate? There are plenty of cases where it is. Murder, rape, one could easily put together a list of "cut and dry" examples.
Copyright is not one of them.
In fact, Copyright law is not about "protection of rights". It never has been. It is a limited monopoly granted to an author specifically to encourage works. Not because they deserve it, but because we hope it will encourage them to make more. Feel free to read the US Constitution and copyright laws if you have any doubt about its intentions. (I can't speak for other countries, I havn't read their constitutions or copyright laws)
Authorship is not ownership, not even under current copyright law, not even after the extensions to the law that some major multinationals purchased.
> I have no idea if you are the kind of person
> who would go distribute Windows on street
> corners -
I would never be so cruel as to distribute windows to people in any form whatsoever. (I just couldn't resist that one)
Of course, of all things I ESPECIALLY think that software should not be copyrightable. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the practitioners of an arts. However, programming has practical use and thus will always be needed. The art doesn't need copyright to flourish. Programmers can always get commissioned jobs.
-Steve
> Only under the terms of what you're calling a
> monopoly (and what I would simply refer to as
> IP ownership)
I call it a monopoly because the people who originally instituted it called it a monopoly. That is what copyright is!
Need I remind you that IP doesn't exist? Not in any legal sense. It really doesn't. What we are talking about is copyright.
Copyright, by its very definition, is a "limited monopoly" given to the creator of a work. It is given NOT because the author owns the work, or has some "god given right" to it, but to encourage people to produce art and other socially useful things. It is social contract by the people, with the authors saying "We will cede our rights to copy your works to you for a limited time".
Technology has rapidly reached the point where this is no longer feasable, or needed. Without copyright, true, it would be hard, if not impossible, to work as an "author" (unless you worked for a newspaper). You would need a day job. It would mean that only the best would really see ALOT of money form what they produce.
I don't think thats so bad. I don't want the Arts to be thought of as an "Industry". Sure art is socially productive and good, but, not so socially productive that we should encourage and reward it as much or more than a "normal job".
> I agree completely. But in practice, the first
> step is that someone's lawyer sends out a cease
> and desist letter.
Which is just a restatment of the law. The force behind the cease and desist letter is still the Armed Men with gun who will come by if it is ignored. THEY are the seat upon which all legal power rests.
In the end, we are just going to disagree. I think the current system was a fine thing when it was implimented, but some people are just taking it too far. They see the limited monopoly that they were granted and want more of it. They want the public to give up more and more rights - or for longer and longer periods. Its time to end it.
Humans need art (I am of course including music in art). We will find ways to make it work. More art isn't always better. In fact, I think we are at the point where we have hit that point. We don't need the government to encourage art anymore.
-Steve
Its not yours. Authorship is not ownership.
You want to claim the right to constrain other peoples behaviour because you authored something.
You want to claim that something that you created, and sold to someone else is still yours? Nonsense I say.
This is silly. We are not going to agree. You obviously have no problem with the use of "threats of force" to turn information into "Property", no matter how unlike property it really is.
So in short, you continue calling me a theif (or actually supporter of theifs, I havn't actuaslly engaged in "sharing" of the sort I advocate in quite a while), and I will continue saying that copyright law is unneeded and immoral and serves only to keep large corperations in power and take away our rights as individuals.
Oh, and I will occasionally throw in a call to do away with the entire statist capitalist system and replace it with some form of anarcho-socialism. You can feel free to call me a "pinko commie leftist" anytime you like.
And I will continue releasing all of the software and other things that I write either under the GPL or some other free license...because I don't believe that I have the right to restrict anyone else from shareing and using my works. (and one of these days I will get around to actually putting some more "works" up on my web page... so much to do...why the hell am I arguing with you?)
-Steve
As most of the rest of your reply amounts to thinly veiled personal attacks via misrepresenting my views and a few small straw men, I don't feel any need to reply to them.
> the moral problem is, why should some people
> pay because they're honest and not have the
> benefit of a system that forces everyone else
> to make the choice between paying and having
> the product, or not paying and therefore not
> getting to have their own copy of the music.
Exactly.
"System that forces". Therein lies my problem.
Should the system forcibly stop murderers? Absolutly! Should it stop rapists? No doubt! Should it stop con artists and other committers of fraud? sure. Muggers and theives? definitly!
As for forcibly stoping "Unauthorized Copiers". No Im sorry, I can't support that. Its a crime with no victem. Noone is hurt. The only way you can even imagine "damage" is to talk about some imaginary "value" or "money that a person didn't get".
I am sorry, but I just do NOT think that it is EVER legitimate to use the threat of force by the government (which is what a law is - a threat of force) to solve general social or economic problems (like artists desire to be compensated). The threat of force should ONLY be used to stop the use of illegitimate force.
-Steve
Ok... here is my problem with the concept of IP.
Lets take the example where Alice authors Book (Book being th ename of the work - whether it is a song, peice of software, or real book is irrelevant here).
Carl buys a copy of Book from Alice. Carl enjoys book, and sees his friend David. He makes a copy of Book for David, because he thinks his friend David will also enjoy Book.
David is indeed getting "value" from Book. What is that value? Maybe it helps him get his work done, maybe it provides entertainment.
The law says that Alices copyright has been violated. (actually depending on the medium that could debatably be fair use, but thats a topic fo r the lawyers). However, I don't see how this transaction involves Alice at all...nothing of hers was involved.
Under the Doctrine of IP, she should be the only one allowed to make copies, and thus profit off a monopoly. She is the only one who can produce this product (which is really just copies of something she already made).
How could she produce works and be compensated without this monopoly? I don't really see that as my problem to solve. There are many proposals for this already in the world.
She could do it for commission! Thats certainly viable for software authors (and sometimes musicians - in fact its exactly how many like Bach made their money), and painters, sculptors etc (possibly less so for book authors).
There are even some experiemnts going on by novel authors in ways of distributing content so that they don't need copyright enforcement to make money (they have been mentioned on slashdot).
As to a few other things you said... When I say "Armed soldiers" I mean it THATS WHAT POLICE ARE! We often forget that in our daily lives. Sending police after someone is not something that should EVER be taken lightly, and its something that I think people need to be reminded of.
As for fair use... I don't know if I can find the article (it was referenced from slashdot a while back) it was one of the napster cases where it was stated that once a person has copy of a song, fair use applies and they may listen to it all they want - even if they obtained the song via illegal distribution. The only reason I remember this is that it struck me as bizzare that lawyers on both sides of the case (one side being RIAA lawyers) agreed.
-Steve
I am not advocating taking away anyones "right to to decide whether I want to be compensated for my work."
I am advocating getting rid of government imposed restrictions on copying. Now, if that makes it harder for you to be compensated for you work, you are free to find a new way to attain compensation - one that does NOT require an army of armed soldiers (called police) to change the behaviour of your fellow citizens.
As I said previously (was it in this thread?) a law is a statment by the government that "If you do X, our soldiers are authorized to stop you". I do not believe that copping is wrong.
As I have said, "Unauthorized Copying" is not stealing by MY definition of stealing. Information is not property, and I don't care how much jumping up and down and complaining about "wanting compensation" you do, it does not have the same features as real property, its not property.
As for compensation, I have already said that I think it is wholly right that artisans be compensated for their creations. I am willing to compensate them to encourage good work.
What I am not willing to do is to support copyright law. People share information and thats good. Information is not property, and copying information is not stealing. Not even the law, which I have stated I disagree with, calls it stealing.
In fact, its quite clear, from looking at the law, that an illegally obtained copy is just that, illegally obtained. Not illegal to posess or use. Fair Use still applies! How would you correlate this with this concept of "Information as Property"? Of course, the entire concept of "fair use" seems to contradict the doctrine of "IP" now doesn't it?
Would you advocate that personal ice making machines and freezers should have been outlawed because of what they did to the ice harvesting industry? (just think, a person can go out to a lake now, and cut ice from the frozen lake, and noone will compensate them for their work...a whole industry was wiped out!)
-Steve
There is a simple fact: Humans create things even when there is no profit motive at all. The act of creation, the act of searching and discovery is IN AND OF ITSELF rewarding.
True, there are people who are motivated by profit. However, as far as I can tell (both from my own motivations and the motivations of people that I have talked to) many (if not most) are only motivated by profit when profit is needed. Its only because of the need to pay bills and maintain quality of life that people seek money.
How many times have you seen a person going stir crazy after retiurement? They ahve the urge to work, and often get involved in little projects and building things, for love of working!
The moral problem with copyright (specifically, as I said, IP is a nonsense term that doesn't even have a legal definition) is NOT artisans getting paid for their work. Hell no...I think its great and I would gladly pay an artist or a writter for the enjoyment that I derive from their work.
The moral problem is with government enforced restrictions on copying. Yes, authors should get paid. That does NOT mean that they have ANY right to stop a person from sharing with others.
Whether it is good economically or not is besides the point. A transaction between me and my friend does not concern anyone else. If I hand him a copy of the New Kids on the Block's Greatest Hits (which, sadly, is a real album) it is NOONES buisness but mine and my friends.
I am fundamentally oposed to ANY law that says I can't share information with my friends. Its unenforcable at best, and, in my eyes, morally corrupt.
I will not support the use of armed soldiers to support "restrictions on copying". Its just not right.
Its funny that you keep brionging up pharmasuticals. This is one instance where profit motive definitly works against the people. Sure AZT is great for people with AIDS. Its a good thing. However, profit motive is really a motive to NOT find a cure. Its much much more profitable to develop drugs that keep a person alive and sick, yet alleviate their symptoms. That way you can peddle your drug to them again and again for years.
Much more profitable than actually cureing a disease.
-Steve
> (Communism, for example, where competition is
> bad, and the government tells you what you
> should be doing with your time and how much
> you should be getting paid for it through
> a central planning authority).
As a person who find the ideas of libertarian socialism (a form of anarchism, or the only real anarchism - depending on who you talk to) I would disagree strongly with this.
While this is often a feature of imposed statist communism, it is certainly not a part of the basic tennets of communism any more than having a stock market is fundamental to capitalism (its a logical extension in some circumstances (possibly most) but not a requirement per se).
> In general (with a couple of exceptions),
> if there is no economic incentive to do
> something, it either doesn't get done, or
> it doesn't get done well.
I will admit I only know a few musicians, and certainly not all musicians are great ones. Economic incentive, while nice, isn't what drives a person to create.
You ask me to offer a way to overcome the problems that "IP" solves (it doesn't solve any, because it doesn't exist, it is legally 3 seprate things that have nothing to do with eachother but PR people like to lump together). I don't claim to be able to.
I am saying that the solution (ie government imposed restriction - via copyright and patent) is fundamentally immoral, and wrong. The ends do NOT justify the means.
If that makes some things that are "good" harder to do, then so be it. If certain production and research happens slower, then so be it.
-Steve
> The theft of music, regardless of whether the
> artist still has their copy of the song, is
> theft - pure and simple.
It all boils down to this doesn't it?
YOu obviously believe that information can be owned, and that the restrictions of copyright are "right".
So yes, with those fundamental concepts, yes it is pure and simple.
However, I disagree with them. I do not see copyright law as justified or right. I, in fact, think that stopping the free sharing of information (whether or not you are the "author" of that information) is morally wrong and unjustified by ANYTHING (the only exception being a persons personal, private information - like a log in a diary or your Bank account numbers).
From that viewpoint, which is mine, it is not "theft - pure and simple".
-Steve
Driving over the speed limit is not inherently wrong. I don't think a person deserves to be pulled out by armed soldiers and thrown in a cage for that.
However, Driving recklessly fast (ie too fast for the given road conditions and traffic. Its impossible to put a number on it, sometimes 45 is too fast, sometimes 120 isn't - it all depends on road conditions, and traffic), is endangering the lives of others. So It would be, in my mind, rather justified to have armed soldiers put a stop to the activity before someone else is hurt.
-Steve
> I mean, God could have been one half-assed
> programmer.
Normally I am not the one to defend any gods, however, I would point out that - all good programmers reuse code. No strike that, all programmers re-use code.
I mean hey, who has written more than "one or two" programs (of any type) and never said "Oh, I had to do something just liek this over in..." and went and grabbed a subroutine?
-Steve
I will one-up you.
I run Netscape 4.75 with javascript off AND use a junkbuster proxy to kill banner ads (even slashdots) and kill cookies.
And it worked fine for me
-Steve
> I make a living writing software, and I like
> the idea of authors, artists, etc. being able
> to make money from their creations. Someone
> out there give me a solid ethical justification
> for intellectual property restrictions, please.
"It makes money"
As far as I can tell, thats the major ethical argument in favor of IP.
I agree, I like the idea of Artists and Software programmers making their money (or our money, programming is afterall part of my job). However, I think thats possible without IP restrictions (maybe not as much money in some cases, but that doesn't justify the restrictions).
The Only thing that I see as "protected" by these restrictions is the "Publishing Industry". They are useful in what they do but...they are not either authors or end consumers. If the market changes and they are no longer profitable, then they should buck up and get new jobs.
The law, as written - and as advocated by the copyright profiteers, is that if you copy and distribute a copyrighted work without permission, then the government has the right to send armed soldiers (called "police") to your house and to drag you away kicking and screaming to a cage where you are treated like an animal. Is that what normally happens? No. However, if you don't bow to their demands, its an option available to them.
At first they start with threats, then court, then fines, then it would escalate to these more drastic measures. However NO LAW is justified EVER unless these actions by the state that are used to enforce the laws are justified as a response to what has been done.
Simple test. The law says you can't do X. Do you feel that a person who does X deserves to be dragged out of their home by armed soldiers and thrown in a cage?
ANY law that does not fit that test, is an unjust and unethical law.
-Steve
> I think his point is that you have to
> demonstrate a loss to be stealing. Though I
> don't think that this is neccessarily true
> legally, it does give interesting food for
> thought.
Of course you do!
If you accuse me of stealing TV, and point at my TV, which is the exact same model that you bought, then I can pretty easily counter and prove that I didn't steal it, if you still have your TV.
Stealing isn't about posession, its about loss.
I would ask anyone who thinks that copyright violations is "stealing" to please point me to the section of "copyright law" that uses the word "steal" or "rob" or any of its equivalents. No. Its "Unauthorized copying". "Stealing" is the term used in pamphlets and press releases by lawyers and publishers to push forward the idea of "Intellectual Property" (which is THEIR way of balling up trademarks, patents, copyright and some stuff they just invented ou tof thin air all into one term)
-Steve
I don't think that applies if your a lawyer.
At least thats the way it seems.
Of course, ive been saying for years that legal system that has grown to the level of complexioty where a person can makle a living as a lawyer, is fundamentally broken.
KISS
-Steve
Read some FSF philosophy ;)
The entire point of the GPL is to make the concept of "IP" obselete. To, litterally, squash the idea from the public mind.
The GPL depends on copyright, its is, at its very heart, an attempt to hack the copyright system to serve the ends of those who wish to eliminate "IP".
Don't take my word for it! Get it right from the fsf website. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy
For once, Microsoft was right. The GPL *IS* indeed designed to eliminate IP. That is its stated goal. I, for one, certainly am hopeful that it will be achieved.
-Steve
Well certainly we can argue the semantics of this ad nauseaum.
My point is that language is defined by usage. Meanings of words change over time (check out the OED if you don't believe me).
I think that the dictionary definition, Mussolini's and evern Trotsky's definitions are all old (at least 50 years for either of them). They are NOT current with real world usage.
Your argument would be more valid if we were talking about "Fascism" which can be more accuratly defined in that manner, but this is the adjective "fascist" which is nowhere near so clear.
If I say "Your fascist actions demand retort", then fascist is modifing "actions". I am saying that your actions are in some way related to what a believer in fascism would do. Its a little more nebulous, as it entails my perceptions of your actions, than actually talking about fascism.
-Steve
Guess: 2001-03-15 04:20:00
Damnit...couldbn;t they postpone it another month and 4 days or so, that way I could guess 2000-04-20 04:20:00
-Steve
> Polluting the environment ? *bang* there go
:)
> corporate profits of a year.
Hmmmm Yes...fuck em.
A good use for civil assett forfeiture.
Treat them the same way drug dealers (defined as "Anyone that a paid informant points his finger at") are treated...
Money made by committing a crime (polluting)? Forfeit. Was that money mixed with other money? Sorry, the whole pot gets forfeit.
OH? You didn't buy that with funds that were from this illegal activity...well time to prove it. Burden of proof is on you!
At the very least it would create some corperate pressure to get the forfeiture laws changed
-Steve
So by analogy...
We are standing knee deep in warm wet shit. Rather than try to fix it, we should point over there and say "Look, see they are nose deep in warm wet shit...we should just be happy"?
Its been said a million times but "Correlation is not causation".
We have a very different country than any of those places. Our land is rich in natural resources (probably more so than any other single developed area in the world). The largest portion of our countries development did not happen under the tenticles of some other countries imperialism.
(where the standard mode for colonies always seemd to be "Suck em dry for the good of the motherland")
-Steve
Fascist is an adjective. You gave the definition of the noun fascism (actually, fascist is also a noun, when it refers to a person who supports fascism - however, in context, it was used as an adjective).
It is often used, by english speakers, toapply to anything that promotes "centralization of authority", or supporting the supression of dissenting opinions.
Also remember, dictionaries are not authoritative. They are an attempt to document common usage, they do not define common usage. As such, their definitions tend to lag behind real world usage.
-Steve
Functiomnality isn't the be all and end all of human activity.
I don't know about you, but I recently purchased a nice bookshelf, and keep my own small, selected, library of books.
E-books just arn't the same. They don't have the aesthetic value of a real book. There is just something warm and symbolic about paper books.
-Steve
Depending on how its implimented, it will eventually mean the death of publishing. If it were to catch on, then there is no need to have a printing press...it brings publishing to the realm of the author.
I predict, that if books go away (I don't think they will, partially just because - its nice haveing a personal library of selected books - I have one).
However, the only functions that will become important are editors (someone needs to proof the book) and marketers. Actual "publishing" would no longer have to be in the hands of people who own presses. Authors could deliver their works directly to sales houses.
-Steve
Even so... books will not die.
There will always be people who prefer a real book over electronic ones. Its the whole feel. The whole "I put it on my bookshelf and there it is". The ability to hand a book to a friend and say "Hey, I think you will enjoy this".