seems pretty drivelous to me
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jan 29, 2007 1:01 PM EDT |
"Finally, an honest, eloquent crticism of RMS without all the pinko-hippie-commie inflamatory drivel." I didn't read it that way. The article is the usual mish-mash of illogic, bushwah, and lack of substance. Starting with: "Richard is not the best spokesman for the FSF. ... he's just a shabby guy. If you ever wonder why generally Free Software went nowhere inside corporate circles until Linux came along, this is one reason. Just at a personal level, Linus is a better spokes-model than Richard. He's just as geeky, without looking shabby." First off, since when have RMS and the FSF cared what businesses want? That's never been an FSF goal. If the suits like Linus better, and that's debatable, it's because he's OK with looser licensing standards than RMS. If Linus were a smelly bum, they would still like him. PJ said something to the effect that "it's not that corporations don't understand the GPL. They understand it fine, and don't like it." I don't have the quote handy, but I would qualify that to say that most GPL opponents understand it fine. There are a large number of businesses who support the GPL and FOSS, so it's not "evil suits vs. nice FOSS people", or corporations against real people. It seems that I hear more criticism of RMS from supposed FOSS advocates, all those little blog and forum whiners who lurv Ubuntu because it's cool, and have no idea what free software is about. "Ew, he's smelly and old." Get used to it, kids, that's your destiny too. The GNU/Linux thing I agree with. I don't call it GNU/Linux and you can't make me. :) Then the author pens this gem: "As someone who has never written a line of code but appreciates the instinct and need to protect intellectual property..." Instinct? Get real. We don't have instincts like that, it's a learned behavior. Anyway he's not a coder, so phooey. The moral stuff is kind of weird. It seems unlikely that RMS really equated liberating proprietary code to freeing slaves. I need to see a reference. All in all, just another hatchet job, since he completely avoided the primary things that RMS and the FSF stand for. It may be true that a prettier spokesmodel for the FSF would be more effective. But I'm not taking the word of shallow dopes like the author of this article who don't bother to dig into the real issues. BillG and SteveB are somewhat better-groomed than RMS- does that make them more beloved and credible? No way. Feared and respected from the massive weight of their wealth and ruthlessness. Without that, they're smelly bums too. |
| cr Jan 29, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
> The GNU/Linux thing I agree with. I don't call it GNU/Linux and you can't make me. :) I use it in some contexts, depending on the formality of the discussion and how explicitly I wish to include the GNU toolset in my argument along with the Linux kernel (and, by inference, all the other non-GNU-created/licensed components of a well-appointed Linux distro -- Apache, X/MIT, Perl-Artistic, BSD, Mozilla...) ...but I agree with your point: "You can't make me." Gee, Richard, when did the GPL get a BSD Advertising Clause? |
| dcparris Jan 29, 2007 6:24 PM EDT |
Well it wasn't the vitriolic personal attack that certain Forbes journalists are known for. This is something that we can respond to on a more "intelligent" level. I disagree with most of the points made, but at least he wasn't painting RMS as a stark raving lunatic. I can believe RMS would use the slavery analogy, though I think it fits more closely when referring to the users, imo. I can see the GNU/Linux issue to a point. I question whether the kernel itself makes an entire OS. And I don't see Microsoft calling Windows "ntkernel32", either. Still, I think people have the right to call it what they want. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as RMS in this issue. I really agree with you on the issue of Eye-peeeeee! It's not natural law that governs it, but the US Constitution which merely allows for it. Imagine if the Constitution didn't allow it. Omitting that from our constitution would have changed our whole outlook. Perhaps we wouldn't even have to worry about "software" patents today. ;-) |
| incinerator Jan 30, 2007 1:21 AM EDT |
Aye, all good points. Imho, both the vyatta person and the author belong to the commonly encountered IPdroid species Eben Moglen has depicted so beautifully in "Anarchism Triumphant". The usage of the term "intellectual property" is indicator enough. That Vyatta guy got a couple of things wrong, as well. "redistribution for no charge" is the classic fud argument wrongfully claiming that you're not supposed to make money with Free Software. The other one is this statement "...FSF has been largely ineffectual in getting people to think about "Free Software..." Well, I'd say that depends on who you ask. RMS and FSF ideas are quite popular in academic circles for instance. And if the concept of the "Software Freedoms" is so easily dismissed by so many, why do so many end up using the GPL as licence of their choice? If they wouldn't care about Software Freedom they'd use another license, wouldn't they. The other things that strikes me as uneducated is that both Roberts sees Linus Torvalds as the big leader personality of a "large software movement". Huh? When did that happen? Linus is the big leader of the Linus kernel project, fair enough. But apart from that he doesn't actually do much activism at all. It's the media who's made Linus Torvalds a celebrity that has painted this picture of him being one of the big leader personalities in the Free/Open Source Software movement. But he isn't, he leads the development of the Linux kernel, which is a huge project to give him credit for, but that's about it. Political activism: nyet, nada. Just because someone voices his personal opinion on stuff in interviews every now and then doesn't make him a leading figure in a political movement. |
| bigg Jan 30, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
"What does one say to a man who would equate - even for the sake of an analogy - the "freeing" of software to freeing human beings from slavery?" I don't see the quote where RMS equated freeing software and freeing slaves. All I see is the statement "To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it)." Letting your dog poop on someone's lawn is bad behavior. Being a serial killer is bad behavior. Saying they have something in common does not mean they are equal. I disagree completely with the statement that copying proprietary code is acceptable. It is no more acceptable than is including GPL'd code in a proprietary package. |
| dcparris Jan 30, 2007 8:28 AM EDT |
I actually disagree with RMS on this as well. It is better to avoid the non-Free code than to use it in violation of the terms. That is the primary reason I try to avoid non-Free at all costs. That said, what Stallman is saying is not too far fetched, either. In his view, non-Free software is upheld by an "unjust" license, and is thus easily dismissed. Most people consider disobeying unjust laws a good thing. Unjust licenses is no different. Whether you agree that non-Free licenses are "unjust" is another matter entirely. I'm just trying to help you see where RMS is coming from. He actually does not believe in Copyright at all, if I understand correctly. As for the slavery analogy, it could have been something RMS mentioned in their conversation. I agree, though, that a quote would be useful. |
| bigg Jan 30, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
> Most people consider disobeying unjust laws a good thing. I can accept that. Going back to the slavery issue, I'd have to break certain laws if I were forced to return a slave to his/her master, for instance. In some instances it is better to break the law. I don't often disagree with RMS, but on this issue I think he is a little off-base. He wrote the GPL, he is willing to enforce the GPL, so why doesn't he think others should have a right to enforce their licenses? I'm sure he knows why he believes what he does. Few people are deeper thinkers. Few people live according to their beliefs the way he does. Nonetheless, this is one area where RMS and I will just have to disagree. |
| tuxchick Jan 30, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
Ok, you're all accepting that RMS actually said those things, or that they were quoted in context. I'm not believing it until I see a reputable source, with full context. It wouldn't surprise me if he did, but I want proof, and especially context, because hatchet-job "journalists" are oblivious to nuance. On purpose. |
| bigg Jan 30, 2007 9:31 AM EDT |
I believe the part about it being okay to copy proprietary software is probably correct. For instance at http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html he says "When your friend says "that's a nice program, could I have a copy?" At that moment, you will have to choose between two evils. One evil is: give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program. The other evil is: deny your friend a copy and comply with the licence of the program. Once you are in that situation, you should choose the lesser evil. The lesser evil is to give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program. " |
| jimf Jan 30, 2007 10:05 AM EDT |
"give your friend a copy and violate the licence of the program." And after that little piece of hypocrisy, he expects people to respect his GPL license??? |
| tuxchick Jan 30, 2007 10:18 AM EDT |
Good point, jimf. Seems to me that goes beyond Fair Use, which I understand to mean that my own personal use is pretty much unfettered. But distributing copyrighted material, whether it's for profit or not, violates copyright law. |
| bigg Jan 30, 2007 11:31 AM EDT |
> And after that little piece of hypocrisy, he expects people to respect his GPL license??? But as the Reverend said above, he believes proprietary licenses are immoral, so it is acceptable to violate the license. The GPL, on the other hand, is morally acceptable, so it should be respected. I think that is a bit of a stretch. Impractical at least. |
| jimf Jan 30, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
> he believes proprietary licenses are immoral, so it is acceptable to violate the license Heh, I think that taxes are 'immoral' too. So, I should stop paying taxes? We're on a very slippery slope here bigg. |
| dcparris Jan 30, 2007 4:27 PM EDT |
As bigg said, it's a bit of a stretch. I gather bigg has his spiked boots on for the slippery slope. Funny enough, I don't see taxes as immoral, but I have difficulty begrudging folks who think they are. ;-) I pay mine, and avoid using non-Free software since sharing and/or modifying it usually violates the license. But I do know that RMS takes the position that it is better to violate the license than to not share. As for the slavery analogy, I have been pondering whether one can, in fact, equate the FOSS movement with the Civil Rights movement. So it's interesting to me that it crops up in this article. I don't see the code as the thing that needs to be free - I've been thinking of the users. The code has been secondary in my thinking, even though that what the users need access to. I think the analogy is interesting, if not very strong, in that we are, essentially, fighting for freedom in the digital realm. |
| hiohoaus Jan 30, 2007 6:19 PM EDT |
Then the author pens this gem:
"As someone who has never written a line of code but appreciates the instinct and need to protect intellectual property..." tuxchick, I hope the author penned this about himself rather than RMS, who has written at least several compilers & big chunks of EMACS & other stuff (can’t remember seeing his name in that VMS Fortran (later RatFor) Empire game (quick, move that Carrier West a step so that the Fighter can reach it!)), but it was spread pretty thoroughly through the DECUS tapes of yore. |
| dcparris Jan 30, 2007 6:32 PM EDT |
hiohoaus: that was not penned about RMS. :-) |
| hiohoaus Jan 30, 2007 8:27 PM EDT |
Oh, yes, & Eric's copy is in C. Had to tweak a couple of function declarations, but it goes. Too much to do these days to actually spend time playing it, but it goes. |
| hiohoaus Jan 30, 2007 8:29 PM EDT |
dcp: well, evidently said author wasn’t quite that dumb... (-: |
| DarrenR114 Jan 31, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
Quoting: RMS as a stark raving lunatic. Stallman's not luney??? Perhaps not - but he is well known for being very eccentric. On the topic of "software rights," I don't have any quotes on hand, but I do remember reading a few years back quotes attributed to Stallman that he equivocates software code with people, and entitled therefore to the same rights as individuals. The reasoning, as I recall, was based on the idea that corporations are recognized as individuals by the court system. Personally, I've always felt that the legal concept of corporations as persons was a bit whack, but it is what it is. |
| dcparris Jan 31, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
Wow. I've never seen that one at all. I've seen the comparison to water or air, but not to people. I can handle eccentric. This brings me to the poit of my editorial comment. My real problem is that name-calling gets us nowhere in the debate. It only serves to stir up a good flame war. The author and the guy he quoted were a bit more eloquent than their counterparts at Forbes. I have yet to see Stallman make the kinds of personal attacks that have been levelled at him. |
| jimf Jan 31, 2007 10:17 AM EDT |
> I have yet to see Stallman make the kinds of personal attacks that have been levelled at him. Yeah, he just implies that everyone who opposes him 'EVIL'.... Talk about tarring with a broad brush :D |
| bigg Jan 31, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
This kind of thing is why my only hero in the computing realm is Donald Knuth. And only then because I don't know what's really going through his mind, I just read his non-fiction, non-opinion works. I guess that if I did know what he really thought, I'd probably also be scared of him. I'd like to see some quotes if Darren can find them. |
| jdixon Jan 31, 2007 10:38 AM EDT |
> I can handle eccentric. If you couldn't, this wouldn't be the place for you. :) |
| DarrenR114 Feb 01, 2007 8:25 AM EDT |
I'm looking for any reference to the quotes I remember reading. Please be aware that I'm not looking to start, or perpetuate, urban legends. I'm not even really sure if they were a news articles or discussion threads on usenet. Also, what I remember is that the quotes were *attributed* to Stallman. What I do know is that Stallman has definitely stated that software should not be property, and used 'human rights' as support for his reasoning that software should be free. This is very different from saying that software should have rights. Considering that many times short quotes are easy to get skewed, especially when referring to Mr. Stallman, it would not surprise me if what I remember is a distortion of a distortion. While I am still looking for the source of my memory, it would not surprise me if it no longer is available if it was a news article, since I'm thinking this was back in 1998-1999. |
| tuxchick Feb 01, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
The article is still a hatchet job, since its sole aim is to mock and discredit RMS. RMS has some views that I don't agree with- but that doesn't discredit everything he says. |
| dcparris Feb 01, 2007 2:45 PM EDT |
True. |
| incinerator Feb 02, 2007 12:22 AM EDT |
"software should not be property" It isn't, please ready your national edition of copyright law for details. This is a good example why one should try avoid using the term "intellectual property". It brainwashes people and implants wrong assumptions into their minds. Software isn't property, not literally, not figuratively, not legally, period. Holywood, BSA, et. al might want to make us thing it is, but it isn't. Realising software isn't property is an important step towards understanding the concept of software freedom. Property is an important concept in modern societies. Most nations' constitutions grant basic rights to protect one's property. Using the term "intellectual property" implies that "owners" of software should automatically enjoy the same rights as for real property. As long as you think of software as property you'll never realise that argument isn't sound. I can only recommend to read Eben Moglens's excellent paper on the topic: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html |
| DarrenR114 Feb 02, 2007 8:33 AM EDT |
incinerator - That software code falls under copyright law in the U.S. has been a well established legal principle in this country that no legal expert has ever questioned. Utility patents based solely on software code, on the other hand, are controversial and still somewhat under dispute. Since you claim that "software isn't property," could you point out the legal precedent with regards to U.S. copyright law that supports this claim? Eben Moglen is a well-known professor of law and counsel of record for the FSF, but that does not make him the final authority. What we would like things to be and what things actually are is often two different situations. |
| incinerator Feb 05, 2007 1:40 AM EDT |
I never questioned the applicability of copyright law to software (though that's not a trivially concluded fact, either). However, works under copyright law and property are two different things, and I was specifically questioning using the term "property" for something that, from the legal point of view, isn't. As in "intellectual property". But let's have a look at that U.S. copyright law you lovingly refer to: It all starts with U.S. constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It doesn't say that those "writings and discoveries" become the creator's property, at all. Neither do any of the other pieces of legistlation. Now, of course the constitution only provides for establishing the basic principle for copyright, patents and so on. In order to have a closer look we will need to read T3h C0pyr1ght L4w itself. You surely already know that copyright law is codified in Title 17 of The United States Code. Let's have a look and search for the word property. Here's a link to the official PDF straight from the U.S. copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf You will see that the term property is used in three ways in that law: 1. Referring to a physical copy of a medium, like a book or a record 2. Referring to other laws and international agreements which misleadingly usie the term "intellectual property". 3. Referring to a special right called "property in design" that covers protection for designs which cannot be protected under "profane" copyright law. If a law wanted those "writings and discoveries" to become their creators' property, it would need to say so explicitly. Now, how come the constitution uses the term "granting exclusive rights" instead? |
| swbrown Feb 05, 2007 2:47 AM EDT |
Those that want to farm the community really hate it when we follow people that keep that from happening. |
| dcparris Feb 05, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
Thank you, Incinerator, for elaborating on that! |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
You won't find the word 'privacy' in the U.S. Constitution either but according to the Supreme Court, the right to privacy is a constitutional right. Your argument against considering copyrighted works as property is reminiscent of the U.S. Attorney General's opinion that habeas corpus is not a right granted under the US Constitution. What's his rationale? The mention of habeas corpus is not specifically stated as a right within the US Constitution. Try working the hole backwards - What is the basic definition of "property"? Does the grant of copyright give the same rights and privileges of control of the copyrighted work as would a title deed over a piece of real property or as an automobile title over personal property? The short answer to the second question is "yes". There's a whole discussion to be had about "tangible" and "intangible" property. This then gets into the entire idea of "ownership". The fact of the matter is, regardless of how Prof. Moglen or Mr. Stallman would like things to be, copyrighted works are considered "intangible property" under the law. It is what it is and giving a rational reasoning that the moon is made of green cheese doesn't make it so. |
| incinerator Feb 06, 2007 8:01 AM EDT |
Well, that's the point, the answer isn't "yes". You just claim the [short] answer to be yes because you simplify out of convenience. That doesn't make it right, though. The concept of property has been existing since the dawn of mankind [to varying degrees of sophistication]. The legal concept of copyright wasn't established before the 18th century, patents before the 15th century. The term "intellectual property" wasn't even mentioned before 1845. And to debunk one of your other wannabe arguments: "The mention of habeas corpus is not specifically stated as a right within the US Constitution." That is a blatant lie: U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Nine [Limits on Congress]: "The privilege of the writ of HABEAS CORPUS shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." |
| jdixon Feb 06, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
> You won't find the word 'privacy' in the U.S. Constitution either but according to the Supreme Court, the right to privacy is a constitutional right. The right to privacy is inherent in the 9th and 10th amendments: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Note that the 10th amendment also means that the US government does not have any powers not granted to it by the Constitution, as those are retained by the states and the people. Unfortunately, this is the single most ignored aspect of the Constitution. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
incinerator: You really should read my message closer: I didn't say that Habeas Corpus wasn't a right - the US Attorney General, Mr. Alberto Gonzales, has gone on record saying that. And in that exact section you quoted, read it very carefully - Habeas Corpus is listed as a "privilege" not a right. For the record, I do not agree with Mr. Gonzales' assertion in this matter. As for simplifying the arguments for "convenience" - that's not wholly true. We could conduct an entire law course on just "intangible property". This is not the place. Do some research on intangible property and legal precedents regarding copyrights as intangible property. You can start by reading Westlaw, or even Black's Law Dictionary. You'll find it's a well established principle that copyrighted works are considered "intangible property". Therefore, to avoid a drawn out discussion that is of really no relevance to LXer, I drew the line to specify the short response. I simply referred to Habeas Corpus and Privacy Rights previously to indicate that your "strict constructionist" argument was logically faulty. I noticed that you are familiar with the section on Habeas Corpus, but did you find any explicit mention of "privacy"? The bottom line is: No matter what the weather is like on Mars, we have to deal with the climate problems on Earth. In other words, legally speaking, because of "black letter law" *and* legal precedent, copyrighted works are intangible property, regardless of the alternate reality you want to live in. You can carp all day long on one interpretation of one statute, but since, in the US, we live in a "common law" society, you have to look at legal precedent as well. And here is where your logic falls short - legal precedent says that copyrights are "intangible property" with all the "ownership" issues that entails. Maybe you can get Dinotrac to conduct a law school-level course here on "intangible property", but I'm not going to. And so we'll leave it at that. Copyrights are property and it is what it is, being neither "right" nor "wrong". It seems to me that you are confusing what is "legal" with what is "right" (by which I believe you mean "moral".) Abortion is legal in the US as well, but that does not mean I believe it is "right". |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
jdixon - That's exactly my point: Just because a particular term is not explicitly used in a statute, constitution, or ruling, that does not mean that the said appellation doesn't apply. |
| incinerator Feb 06, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
"Just because a particular term is not explicitly used in a statute, constitution, or ruling, that does not mean that the said appellation doesn't apply." Fair enough, I agree that not every right has to be defined explicitly in a constitution, there's common law etc. However, the syllogism you use still doesn't apply. Just because the right of privacy isn't explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution doesn't conclude that IP rights define copyrightable works as property. Why? Because the concept of copyright and related rights actually is explicity defined in the U.S. constitution. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Stocks, bonds, money on your account, even paper money are intangible property. Patents, copyrights etc. only count as property insofar as that they belong to someone who's been granted an exclusive right to exploit any such particular work. However, that doesn't establish property on the work itself. When I buy a book or a cd with copyrighted works in it, the book or cd becomes my property, with all the ink and the pits and lands in them. It's copyright law that regulates what I am allowed to with the contents of the book or the cd, not profane property law. Legal precedent for profane property has been existing for millenia. For copyright, patents and whatnot they didn't start putting laws together until the 15th century. If you talk about "black letter law" and "legal precedent" why don't you show us some? |
| dcparris Feb 06, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
Aren't rights and property two different things? Just because something is a right, doesn't make it property. So, copyright is not necessarily property - it's a right. We seem to treat it as property at times, and it's a cute analogy, but that's about as far as I would run with the idea that it is any kind of "property". Attempting to define such a right as property strikes me as classical Postmodern thinking. While I certainly see the benefit of instituting a system of copyrights and patents, the notion of actually owning an idea is absolutely ludicrous, and there is nothing on which such notions can stand. Somewhere, there was a website discussing the invention of the telephone, or maybe the phonograph. At any rate, the long-recognized American inventor was eventually displaced by an Italian too poor to get his invention recognized in Italy in a timely fashion. Whose idea was it, anyway? There were other contenders, after all. Different people in different corners of the globe, all with the same or similar ideas. Fancy that. Tell me, oh great legal scholars, whose "property" is it? I'm not trying to undermine or invalidate our legal system; it's decent as far as it goes. But to try to equate copyright with property is a bit of a stretch. I am not a lawyer. I am not a legal scholar. I'm just some knucklehead asking questions. The questions may not even be intelligent enough to qualify for this forum. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 10:49 AM EDT |
incinerator: Because I don't feel like renewing my subscription to Westlaw (and linking to such articles would be a violation of the subscription agreement anyways), and I don't have a copy of the Corpus Juris Secundum on hand. In other words, satisfying you isn't worth the effort or money. If you don't believe me get advice from a practicing attorney. But here's a hint: the sale of copyright, just like all intangible assets, is subject to federal taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, just like any other piece of property that has value. Also, copyright can be passed on in a will as an incorporeal inheritance, in the same way that Title Deeds may be passed on in the same will. These are things that you or anyone can find by researching Google. There - I've just given you two categories of precedent showing the accepted legal norm of copyright as property. Your definitions of property do not pertain to the concept of intangible assets, only to "tangible assets." Thus, we will never agree. But that doesn't matter, because in the Corpus Juris, incorporeal property is very real (pardon the pun,) so you're not just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the entire system of jurisprudence (in the US anyway.) |
| incinerator Feb 06, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
dcparris: On the contrary. The questions you're asking make a good point, actually. They are part of the reasoning why copyrightable works or patents on inventions do no qualify as profane property as such. Ideas, Inventions, stories, songs etc. cannot be owned as such, but might very well deserve the protection of the interests of those who created them. IT actually is as you said. Copyright law, patent law got established to be able to treat such works in a similar manner to property, as this was an established concept that had proven to work well enough to utilise it for copyright. Without those laws, the interests of the creators would not have any protection at all. Just because the law commands me to treat them similarly to property doesn't make them property as such. Copyright law, patent law etc. would become redundant otherwise. There are still many differences e.g. between copyright law and profane property law that distinguish them from each other. For instance, copyright and patent protection doesn't last forever. After so and so many years the work or invention in question will enter the public domain. Profane property always belongs to someone, unless deliberately derelicted into the public domain. Every copyrightable work created by a person employed by federal government automatically enters public domain and cannot enjoy the protection of copyright, at all. Profane property created by the federal government still remains its property, though. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
At the risk of opening another can of worms, I couldn't find a legal definition of "profane property". It's not a legal concept that I'm familiar with. I did find mention of "profane property" at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vo... But this indicates property not of a religious nature owned by a religious organization. I'm confused now. |
| incinerator Feb 06, 2007 12:03 PM EDT |
Regarding the almost religious fervor you've been making your points with, I think the term fits pretty well *ggg* |
| DarrenR114 Feb 06, 2007 12:06 PM EDT |
incinerator: I guess what's got me confused is how does a government (which is not a religious institution) own "profane property"? Is your use of the word "profane" referring to its more archaic meaning of "ordinary"? |
| jdixon Feb 06, 2007 1:10 PM EDT |
> For instance, copyright and patent protection doesn't last forever. Give Disney time... |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 06, 2007 1:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:For instance, copyright and patent protection doesn't last forever. IIRC one US senator proposed "Eternity minus one day". |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
Yes, Disney the creator of Snow White, Bambi, Mowgli, and so forth certainly deserves an eternal lock on its property. Sander, that must be a relative of the brainiacs in the Indiana state legislature that tried to legislate a fixed, finite value for pi. |
| jdixon Feb 06, 2007 5:59 PM EDT |
> Yes, Disney the creator of Snow White, Bambi, Mowgli... Well, except for the fact that Disney didn't "create" any of those. They merely adapted them to the screen in animated form. And in the case of Bambi and Mowgli, poorly. |
| tuxchick Feb 06, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
/me baps jdixon That was sarcasm, son. :) |
| dcparris Feb 06, 2007 6:29 PM EDT |
That's right, boys and girls! Good old Walt himself was one of the greatest "pirates" in entertainment history. How ironic that the company now seeks to prevent what it was allowed to do. All hail Walt Disney! Now, peasants, pay your tribute! |
| incinerator Feb 07, 2007 12:00 AM EDT |
"Is your use of the word "profane" referring to its more archaic meaning of "ordinary"?" Archaic it might be, but it still was a valid meaning of the word last time I checked. |
| jdixon Feb 07, 2007 2:32 AM EDT |
> That was sarcasm, son. Sorry TC, I figured it was, but I didn't want to risk someone taking it seriously. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 07, 2007 5:00 AM EDT |
dcparris - one note on copyright - it's not technically a "right": it's a grant of limited protection by the government to a person, or persons, over a work product. incinerator - Last time I checked, "profane property" has no "legal" meaning with regard to incorporeal property. So in the end, you're talking apples and oranges when trying to apply principles of tangible property to intangible property. |
| incinerator Feb 07, 2007 6:00 AM EDT |
apples and oranges, exactly. I'm talking apples and oranges because my point is that apples aren't oranges. And it's not me who's applying the principles of tangible property to intangible property, I believe that was you. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 07, 2007 6:17 AM EDT |
incinerator -
You're the one talking "profane property" - and that means "tangible property". Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are considered "intangible property". There are many other types of incorporeal property. The same rules concerning tangible property do not necessarily apply to intangible property, but that does not mean that intangible assets are not property. And this goes to the heart of your premise that copyrights are not property. They are. Copyrights are intangible property. Attempting to use the rules about tangible property to show that Copyrights are not property does not work, because the rules regarding tangibles don't necessarily apply to intangibles. And there is where we will simply have to agree to disagree, because this thread has become only tangentially related to LXer.com |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
DarrenR114 - This whole IP isn't property stuff drives me nuts, generally because people seem to know nothing about property. What they end up arguing is that IP isn't things. Can't argue with that. However, there is nothing special about things that make them property, either. Property is a legal concept. Land becomes property because somebody recognizes and can defend it as such. Same for things. If you put a DVD player out on the curb with the trash, it's not really property anymore -- presuming your town doesn't have anti-scavenging ordinances, anybody can pick it up and claim it as their own -- which would make it property again. For that matter - what about money? We generally keep it in a completely intangible form. Does that mean we don't own our money? Property is a matter of specific legal rights, and can those rights can be applied to all manner of things or non-things. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 07, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
Dino - exactly. The only reason I know anything about this sort of thing is because I've worked for estate planners/attorneys. But you know what they say - a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. But I do know enough to know that I will never go pro se in a court of law. |
| incinerator Feb 07, 2007 7:07 AM EDT |
If I had wanted to refer to IP rights as intangible property, I would have used that term. However, Ideliberately avoided it and used the term "profane" property. Call it "ordinary", "old-school", "traditional" or "real" property, probably everyone except you has understood what I meant. You didn't and I guess that wasn't an accident, either. I've listed enough examples of intangible property in one of my posts. You're the one that tries to add IP rights to that mix, no me. Unlike me you haven't been able to back up your arguments with a single line of legal code, yet. All you have offered so far is insults, syllogisms that aren't applicable, plus some incoherent gibberish about little knowledge being more dangerous than no knowledge. I certainly don't expect my opinion to be the ultimate wisdom on that matter, on the contrary. I'm well aware of the fact that there's a sufficient number of people that actually think that IP rights are property. However, at least I've undergone the effort to educate myself, and that wasn't just reading up on legal code either. I've formed a theory that has merits and has sound reasoning as far as it can get in these matters. All you have to offer is the argument that IP rights are property because they are treated similalry, backed up by the god-like revelation that you have worked for a lawyer once in your life. Either you are brainwashed by BSA, RIAA, MPAA et. al or you just like to troll. Have a nice day. |
| dinotrac Feb 07, 2007 8:07 AM EDT |
incinerator - FYI - my mini-rant wasn't directed at your post so much as general frustration. Your posts in this thread are well within the range of opinion and reasonable differences based on actual information. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 07, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
incinerator, The majority (if not the totality) of your posts toward me in this thread have been rather inciteful in nature. Why? Is it simply because I pointed out that the logic you were using to support your "theory" is flawed? Pointing out the flaw in your "strict constructionist" argument about the non-use of the word "property" in the constitution and the statute did not justify such vitriol, I don't believe. Why did you lower yourself to such? Showing that there are differences between tangible and intangible assets does not make such insulting responses reasonable. Why did you lower yourself to such? Since it was you who took this entire thread off on a tangent with the ill-conceived pronouncements using terms such as "profane property," I could have very well been the one to accuse you of either being a troll, or being brainwashed by the FSF and I would have been just as "valid" in doing so. But I did not. Why did you lower yourself to such? "wannabe arguments" ... "blatent lie" ... these are very inflammatory accusations that obviously arose out of an inaccurate reading of my post. Why did you lower yourself to such? Why? |
| dcparris Feb 07, 2007 10:42 AM EDT |
I think there's plenty of room for us to disagree with each other respectfully guys. Incinerator, you might think Darren's post missed your point intentionally, but I really think he honestly disagrees with you. For my part, I can only say that regardless of whether we treat copyrights and patents as property, I sure don't want so-called "software patents" getting anymore teeth than they seem to have now. Darren, thanks for your counterpoint to my argument. I suspect that you are probably correct, at least at some level, and I'm still not sure I agree with you. I think it would be ridiculous to expect all of us to be experts in everything, and I've acknowledged my lack of expertise in this area already. I don't so much object to the direction this thread has taken, but let's keep it fun guys. That's what makes LXer what it is. |
| mvermeer Feb 07, 2007 11:18 AM EDT |
> ... that tried to legislate a fixed, finite value for pi. Standardization is a good thing. Look at what happened to the inch. And everybody knows that pi is equal to three, but only for large values of three. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!