just another way of saying "producers are worthless"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jun 24, 2009 10:35 PM EDT |
I don't follow the logic of this piece, though that could be my deficiency. The beauty of using copyleft for Free Software is it protects both the creators of software and users, and it does so by using the same laws that are currently being stretched to the breaking point to take away the rights of creators, and of users. Maximum freedoms with minimal restrictions. It seems to me the attitude expressed in the article is "real freedom means I do whatever I want, regardless of the consequences." Free as in freeloader. Analogies are tricky, but in a lot of ways Free Software is like a community garden. Everyone benefits by following wise practices, such as composting and organic soil amendments, correct watering practices, growing plants that are appropriate for the area, and weed control. You get out of it what you put into it, and plenty of folks get a free ride because a good garden is productive beyond what the gardeners can use. Sure, a person could exercise their sacred free right to be a moron and spread weeds, floods, and drought because by gosh freedom is everything. It seems to me the article is showing a total lack of respect and appreciation for the producers of Free software by advocating 'free as in freeloader.' Just as if someone drove a big truck to the community garden and took everything in the name of exercising their sacred freedom rights to exploit the labors of others. It's no different than what the MAFIAA have been doing since their inception, which is exploiting the work of creative artists. Or proprietary software vendors who expend more resources in controlling and restricting what their customers can do, to the point of interfering with governments and standard bodies. I think that the absolute least any user of Free Software can do is respect its copyrights and the talent and labors of the people who actually create it-- sheesh, what kind of greedy fool thinks that even the minimal restrictions of the GPLare too burdensome? Maybe theyd like to write all that software their own self. How about a little gratitude, instead of complaining like a typical proprietary software vendor who thinks only their own licenses should be respected? |
| tracyanne Jun 24, 2009 11:14 PM EDT |
This
Quoting: We received a phone call this morning from Microsoft. Apparently the boss purchased a new MSDN subscription as part of a Microsoft "Open" License agreement. However during the ordering process the new MSDN subscription became associated with an existing "Open" Licence authorisation number, which is due to expire on June 30, which means the new MSDN subscription for the "Open" License will expire at the same time, and the 2 years of "Benefits" to this organisation will be lost.............. is a prime example of how certain proprietary vendors expend so muc energy taking away rights, and controlling what their customers can do. I agree people who complain about the lack of freedom of Free Software really are greedy and selfish. The incredibly creative use of Copyright law in the GNU GPL has turned copyright on it's head, and as far as I can see the only people who would object to this are those who would leach of the efforts of others for their own private gain, something a License like the BSD License allows. In fact with regard to licenses like the GPL, ther are no restrictions whatsoever as far as a consumer of that software is concerned, they are not even required to pay for it, before they get to use it, and all a software developer is required to do, when using GPLed code is reciprocate in kind. |
| djohnston Jun 24, 2009 11:24 PM EDT |
"It seems to me the article is showing a total lack of respect and appreciation for the producers of Free software by advocating 'free as in freeloader.' Just as if someone drove a big truck to the community garden and took everything in the name of exercising their sacred freedom rights to exploit the labors of others." Exactly. The term "free software" has different meanings to different people. Is any software really free, in terms of cost? Someone has to create the software, expending labor to create a program or set of programs. Surely that person's time is worth some compensation. Yet, it is also up to that person as to whether he or she wants to liberally share the end result with the community for mutual benefit. And to expect some kind of return on the product, if it is updated, is only human nature. To put the agreement in writing is the basic nature of the GPL, version 2. To me, anyway. I could be wrong. Can this guy stretch a sentence structure, or what? The second paragraph is one sentence. |
| vainrveenr Jun 25, 2009 12:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:The term "free software" has different meanings to different people. Is any software really free, in terms of cost? Someone has to create the software, expending labor to create a program or set of programs. Surely that person's time is worth some compensation. Yet, it is also up to that person as to whether he or she wants to liberally share the end result with the community for mutual benefit. And to expect some kind of return on the product, if it is updated, is only human nature. To put the agreement in writing is the basic nature of the GPL, version 2.OTOH, this logic could easily be seen as another refutation to the tenets of Eric Raymond's key work 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar', CatB, http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ Similar leanings can be found in such pieces as Bezroukov's rambling 'Fighting Raymondism: Software Realism vs Software Idealism' found at http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/index.shtml : Quoting:Software Realists are unconvinced by claims of linux superiority and want to see hard facts. Furthermore, history guided them that the proper tradeoffs between different subsystems of OSes can be ironed out only via long, expensive and painful process that requires strong highly paid managers, programmers and testers who are ready to sacrifices their health for the success of their creation. The real art requires sacrifices and it is better when such sacrifices are properly remunerated, although stores of talented artists who died in poverty are nothing new.The main point of the Bezroukov piece revealed here, ends up actually contending with libervisco's call for "free" software through the sacrifice of Civil Disobedience : Quoting:The main point here is that the idea of sacrificing yourself to save humanity is very seductive to certain types of individuals. Probably instead of saving the world it is often wiser to learn to live in it. The latter is also more difficult. Indeed, perhaps more in-depth reviews of CatB and responses to CatB such as Bezroukov's can best shed light on central conceptions of "freedom" that may overlap or even transcend that of libervisco's ? |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:50 AM EDT |
To me this whole thing smacks of the same freeloader mentality as those who justify uploading and sharing musicians' works with the argument "music should be free". They mean free as in free of cost. It's a justification for stealing. I don't believe the tacticts used by the RIAA are correct or justified but that still doesn't change the fact that uploading and shaing that music amounts to theft. Now, there are some excellent musicians who have chosen to release music either into the public domain, under the Creative Commons license, or simply shared their music for non-commercial use while retaining all rights. Nine Inch Nails (Trent Reznor) has done it with two different albums. Avant-garde jazz composer and percussionist Oriol Perucho (formerly of Perucho's and Macromassa) did it for one album. Kit Watkins (formerly of the progressive rock band Camel) has done so repeatedly. I could go on and on. I am grateful that these musicians chose to share some of their music. If I enjoy their works I support them by buying their non-free CDs. The point, though, is that the creator or producer of the work had the right to decide how to distribute his or her music and to decide whether or not to do so freely. In this respect I don't see software as different from music. The producer or creator of the work has the right to determine how it is distributed and under what terms. I realize there are some in the FOSS community who are opposed to all copyrights and patents. I am not one of them. If I create something I want the right, the freedom to make the determination of what I do with my work product. In turn the end user has the right to decide whether or not to use what I create. I am also of the opinion that FOSS developers have as much need to earn a living and pay the bills as anyone else. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 5:34 AM EDT |
TC and others. Do you believe software cannot be owned? |
| azerthoth Jun 25, 2009 7:14 AM EDT |
Libervis, I followed your logic chain pretty well, and I see the point your making. It's one I have made before as well, although in a slightly different manner. For those having problems seeing it let me nutshell for you. Restrictions and adding more restrictions can not make something more free only less. Its one reason why proponents of the BSD license see GPL fanatics as nuerotic. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 7:49 AM EDT |
Danijel: Do you believe anything non-physical can be owned? If not, there's no need to discuss any further; at least not for me. |
| tracyanne Jun 25, 2009 7:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Do you believe software cannot be owned? No. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 7:59 AM EDT |
BTW: Danijel, why is your blog under 'Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic' and not in the public domain? |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 8:29 AM EDT |
Hkwing, all I can say is that everything that requires a medium to exist cannot by itself be owned. I once argued though that ideas can be owned, but my argument was in a sense that one instance of an idea that is in your head, by virtue of being in your brain, is owned by you, but as soon as you tell it to someone else it's copied and that other copy is owned by a person who heard it. I over complicated that though and as I later explored the issue the simple conclusion reached is that "brain" here is the medium and thus separate from the idea itself which cannot exist without the medium. You can own the medium, but not the idea. You can own the CDs, DVDs, hard drives, parts of the hard drive (as in server space), but not the arrangements of bits that are on them. The control which you have over the bits stems solely from the control you have over the medium which is why it is wrong to even download something from your server against your will or without respecting your terms, not because someone stole your bits, but because someone used your medium against your will. As for the site being under "Attribution Share Alike", it's a relic from the past when I still believed in copyright. I am going to correct that, though it's not only myself who posts there so I'll have to check that with others... It's not just my blog. The reason I asked the question above is because TC (and some others) were again putting words into my mouth and misrepresenting what I said. No it's not "producers are worthless". TC, even you who accuse me of such should see the amount of hyperbole evident in such a characterization, seriously. But most of all I asked because all of what was said in this thread completely managed to miss the entire core point of the article, which was the contradiction between believing software can't be owned and then proceeding to use or advocate particular usage of a system which operates under the opposite assumption, that it can be owned. That said, a question for tracyanne: Do you agree ownership is defined as "exclusive and absolute control over a thing being owned"? If so, how do you exclusively and absolutely control something that cannot exist without a medium? How do you own an arrangement, the order of things etc? How do you own the fact that number 3 goes after 2 or just the idea of a number "2" as representative of something in the real world? Thanks. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 8:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:Everything that requires a medium to exist cannot by itself be owned. Be careful what you say, because this includes (physical) matter. I don't think that's your intention. Anyway, I believe that creators of information should be rewarded for their efforts, and without copyright it's hard to make sure creators benefit when their creations are multiplied. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 9:52 AM EDT |
What physical matter (seriously curious, I'd like to adjust my explanation or position if necessary)? I also think creators should be rewarded, but only because I think every person owns him or her self and is thus entitled to all of which they create or earn. The problem is when somebody multiplies a copy of a copy of their original arrangement of bits they don't lose anything. Neither has their computer been used, nor their bandwidth and media spent nor have they took the effort to make a copy nor did they lose any copies. None of their property has been touched nor made less of what it is. So I don't get why exactly should these creators benefit when remote people who have nothing to do with them multiply their copies? Last time I checked you earn something only by actually providing something of what you own, not simply sitting there while other people do the work for you. Thinking this way is exactly what gave rise to corporatist proprietary software industry we have today. EDIT: By this logic if we had replicators that could copy physical stuff and you create a new bicycle and sell it to someone and then those people replicate it to others, you should be entitled to control how they do that and under what terms even though neither have they (1) used your replicator, (2) had you replicate it for them, (3) used your energy (for replication) nor (4) taken any of the replicated bikes you have in your garage. They took nothing from you whatsoever. |
| theboomboomcars Jun 25, 2009 10:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:By this logic if we had replicators that could copy physical stuff and you create a new bicycle and sell it to someone and then those people replicate it to others, you should be entitled to control how they do that and under what terms even though neither have they (1) used your replicator, (2) had you replicate it for them, (3) used your energy (for replication) nor (4) taken any of the replicated bikes you have in your garage. They took nothing from you whatsoever. This does occur. The basic double triangle frame design is free for anyone to use, but the are patents on alloys, welding techniques, pivot designs/placements for suspensions, and many others. So if you looked at a bicycle frame and then duplicated it exactly and then sold those copies the patent holders would seek damages from you, since you are selling what society has deemed to be theirs without their permission. I don't want to argue whether this is right or not, it is the way we have set up for people to be rewarded for the efforts the expend to better society. Without these protections, there won't be as many advances and we would most likely still be riding on heavy, expensive, steel, not even chromoly, fixed gear bikes, because there would have not been enough incentive to spend the significant amounts of resources to develop the advances. If you know of a way that we can compensate for research and development for such things while still maintaining absolute freedom I am willing to listen. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 10:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:Do you believe software cannot be owned? Yes, absolutely. The legal system in all of the world's democracies at this point agrees with my position. I do believe that copyrights can and should exist to protect the creators of various works. I also do believe that patents should exist. Software patents are a special case since an idea can be arrived at in any number of ways. I do have a problem with software patents. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 10:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:What physical matter (seriously curious, I'd like to adjust my explanation or position if necessary)? I'm afraid I was confused, but you should consult your local physician. Waves can only exist in a medium, and there's the particle-wave duality, but I'm no expert and it's off-topic anyway. Quoting:The problem is when somebody multiplies a copy of a copy of their original arrangement of bits they don't lose anything. How about this: If I sell a book to 100 customers, there's a deal between me and the 100 customers. If I sell a book to 1 customers, that 1 customer copies it 100 times, and resells it, I don't lose anything. ?? In my opinion, in the second case I just lost 100 customers; but you're insisting I didn't lose anything. In my opinion, the book I created and own (or at least the script) decreased in value because I lost potential customers. Let's say I invent something called X. I spent $100M for research. If I sell it to 100 customers, there's a deal between me and the 100 customers. If I sell it to 1 customer, he copies the product, reproduces it and sells it to the 100 customers which could have been mine, I don't lose anything. ?? In my opinion, in the second case I just lost 100 customers again, but you're insisting I didn't lose anything because I sill have my invention. In my opinion, I'm deprived of value of my invention, because I lost potential customers, and therefore my invention decreased in value, so I lost value. So, your notion Quoting:...when somebody multiplies a copy of a copy of [my] original arrangement of bits [I] don't lose anything. is simply not true. My bits - being a software program, 3D model or book - have a value beyond the bits themselves. When someone multiplies a copy of a copy of my original arrangement, I don't lose my bits. But I do lose much of additional value my bits have. I'd say: Look beyond the bits, there's more value than in 'the bits themselves only' when it comes to the bits. Quoting:So I don't get why exactly should these creators benefit when remote people who have nothing to do with them multiply their copies? Because those remote people who have nothing to do with me just deprived _me_ of the additional value my bits had before they reproduced it. So the notion those remote people have nothing to do with me is also flawed, btw, because they deprived me of value of something I own. Quoting:By this logic if we had replicators that could copy physical stuff We did, and do. It was called America, then Japan, nowadays it's called China (simplified and exaggerated, but still true). Because they copy products for which the additional value was not in the product itself, the additional value that was not in the product itself decreased. Quoting:Last time I checked you earn something only by actually providing something of what you own, not simply sitting there while other people do the work for you. Your opinion is if I make X, sell it to Y, and Y distributes it to Z, I'm sitting while Y does the work. My opinion is Y is sitting and earning by means of doing nothing while I make X. Making X is more work then reselling by the way, so why should Y benefit from the work _I_ did? Moreover, without Y, I could sell it to Z myself, so I don't need Y. Y however does need me. So you're confusing who is doing the work I suggest. The ones copying are earning by waiting until _someone else_ produces something they can own. That's a flawed system. Quoting:If you know of a way that we can compensate for research and development for such things while still maintaining absolute freedom I am willing to listen. I second that. But saying when I work a year on X, sell it to Y, and Y copies it in two seconds and sells it to Z, that Y is the one who did the work and I did nothing and am not a party in that deal; that's not going to be a system that works, neither is it fair. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 11:07 AM EDT |
theboomboomcars:Quoting:I don't want to argue whether this is right or not, it is the way we have set up for people to be rewarded for the efforts the expend to better society. Without these protections, there won't be as many advances and we would most likely still be riding on heavy, expensive, steel, not even chromoly, fixed gear bikes, because there would have not been enough incentive to spend the significant amounts of resources to develop the advances. You don't want to argue what's right, but you do appear to praise "the way we have set up" as if it was the only way such advances could have been possible. Do you believe what's right is at odds with what's inspiring advances? Quoting:If you know of a way that we can compensate for research and development for such things while still maintaining absolute freedom I am willing to listen. Why is it important in the first place to have those advances if not for their INHERENT value? Why is anything else aside from this inherent value necessary as a compensation for these advances? caitlyn: Quoting:Yes, absolutely. The legal system in all of the world's democracies at this point agrees with my position. I do believe that copyrights can and should exist to protect the creators of various works. I also do believe that patents should exist. Software patents are a special case since an idea can be arrived at in any number of ways. I do have a problem with software patents. You're contradicting yourself. If you believe software cannot be owned I think that argument ad populum is stacked up largely against you, not for you. Copyright assumes ownership. And speaking of arguments ad populum, it is a fallacy that is quite annoying ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). The whole world agreeing with you is not sufficient evidence that you're right if the statement is self contradictory (illogical or irrational) or empirically invalid. I never buy such arguments. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 11:34 AM EDT |
hkwint:Quoting:If I sell a book to 100 customers, there's a deal between me and the 100 customers. If I sell a book to 1 customers, that 1 customer copies it 100 times, and resells it, I don't lose anything. First of all this does not factor in to the argument regarding whether books (as arrangements of characters and words) or software (as arrangements of 1s and 0s) can be owned or not. Something wont be true solely because you find it inconvenient otherwise. That said, I still claim you lost nothing (or if you did, it's because you made bad business decisions, not because someone was unethical). If someone sells a copy of your original book copy for less to more people all it means is that this lesser price is the measure of how much your book was truly worth at that point in time. If you have been the one to offer a better deal you may have fared better. Claiming that your book "lost" value is claiming value that didn't exist in the first place and playing a victim as a way of justifying forcing other people to buy from you or play by your rules instead of providing them with more value or a lesser price. Check out the analysis in this post regarding that (after the 6th quote in the post): http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/20004/161496.aspx#... Secondly, you still do have the ability to contract with the single buyer whom buys from you directly. You CAN make it an agreement with him that he wont resell or share with others. But in that case it is only HIM who you can go after if he breaks that agreement, NOBODY ELSE. Nobody else is liable to you except the one YOU had an agreement with. I can't emphasize that enough. So if you so wont exclusivity then deny your customers the right to share and sue them if they do. If that's how you wanna operate it's your right. But copyright doesn't work that way. It empowers you to sue people whom never had an agreement with you. Quoting:My bits - being a software program, 3D model or book - have a value beyond the bits themselves. When someone multiplies a copy of a copy of my original arrangement, I don't lose my bits. But I do lose much of additional value my bits have. I'd say: Look beyond the bits, there's more value than in 'the bits themselves only' when it comes to the bits. First of all these bits cannot exist without the media so they themselves cannot have inherent value. It is always the value of media+bits.. media modified by the actions performed in a certain order or arrangement. Second of all, the only ones who can decide the value of this media+bits package are the market, not you. And if you believe the whole market is wrong then don't let them have it, but then don't expect to have ANY chance of a business or reputation or anything else that may provide you with some wealth. I think you're familiar with the argument against the practices of the music industry as those who compound music "piracy". People wouldn't illegally share music if the music industry gave them a better deal than the "pirates". But of course, RIAA would rather sue your ass than provide you with more value. And this is exactly the result of your line of thinking - let's force people by law to do business with you, inflate the prices so you can have more money or control. Quoting:Your opinion is if I make X, sell it to Y, and Y distributes it to Z, I'm sitting while Y does the work. My opinion is Y is sitting and earning by means of doing nothing while I make X. Making X is more work then reselling by the way, so why should Y benefit from the work _I_ did? Moreover, without Y, I could sell it to Z myself, so I don't need Y. Y however does need me. So you're confusing who is doing the work I suggest. Nope, the work is already done. You already did it and gave the copy to someone. Whether you continue improving your work is irrelevant from that point on because you can easily deny the new versions to other if you so wish. The work in question here is *copying and distributing*, not making the stuff being copied. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 11:35 AM EDT |
After pointing out some of the flaws in Danijel's logic above, I was reminded of something I said ~ two month ago about this topic. How about this: Suppose you live in an economy with 100 people and 100kg of gold; everyone owns one kg. Tonight, your neighbour finds an additional 99kg in his garden and hands one kg out for free to everyone, except you. When you wake up, everyone has 2 kg, except you; you just have 1 kg. Now, the question is, what happened tonight? In Danijels view you didn't lose anything, because you were not deprived of anything. Go to the bakery to see all the prices have doubled so you can only buy half of the amount of bread you could yesterday and you know that view is flawed. In my opinion, what happened, is because the gold was multiplied during the night, it decreased the value of the gold you have. Go to the bakery and you see that's more close to the truth. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2009 11:39 AM EDT |
> But copyright doesn't work that way. It empowers you to sue people whom never had an agreement with you. Out of curiosity, why is that a problem? If someone burns down my house, I can sue him even though we never had an agreement. I don't have a problem with that. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 11:40 AM EDT |
bigg, because they did nothing to your property. The market valuations are not your property. Your house is. K? |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 11:48 AM EDT |
Well, hkwint, I concede that you lose some value, but you do not lose any of your property and that remains my point. You do not have control, nor should, over how much other people are willing to pay for something (market valuations). Value fluctuations are not theft dude. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 11:50 AM EDT |
Another one, just for the fun of it. Once, there was a company (happened to be in my country) who didn't give much about securing their 'copyright'. After all, if someone copied there work, what would it matter? They were the best - and probably still are - in producing their designs. Once, some foreigner copied those designs. No big deal, the company didn't lose anything. They still made profit, still sold their products so they were happy. The countries that the 'copier' took this designs too would not have been able to pay the price for their products in the first place, so it really seems nothing was lost. So everyone is happy because nobody lost anything, because the copier did the work while the company was sitting on its ..., some countries have technologies they couldn't afford but the company still makes profit. A win-win situation, is it? Now talk to the people in Israel or South Korea about what happened; or maybe the people in Hawaii. They were deprived of the freedom to walk on the street without fear after Khan copied those designs at URENCO. |
| theboomboomcars Jun 25, 2009 11:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Why is it important in the first place to have those advances if not for their INHERENT value? Why is anything else aside from this inherent value necessary as a compensation for these advances? If their inherent value for the benefit of everyone was enough for people to expend their resources to create them, then the discoverers would already release them to the public domain, and some people do, but for the most part, we assign more value to these discoveries, so we pay more for them. I do think at the very least someone should be able to recoup their losses, but in order to continue researching those paying for the research and those doing the research need to profit from it, otherwise it won't get done. So if we want advances, we need to pay for them. The current system works for that. It is not a perfect system and has lots of room for improvement. My question to you is, in your system how to you entice people to innovate and share their ideas others? If you only get one sale, then the initial price will be too high for anyone to buy. But you can't charge less than that because even if your idea is wonderful and everyone wants it, once it is published in anyway you have no protection for it. This diminishes incentive to spend time, money, and other resources into developing something. Under the current system everyone who benefits from your idea pays for it. Sometimes far too much, but that is the freedom of the people who developed the idea, they get to charge what they want for it., providing incentive to come up with ideas. I have not seen any enticement to come up with new ideas with your system. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 12:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:You're contradicting yourself. If you believe software cannot be owned I think that argument ad populum is stacked up largely against you, not for you. Copyright assumes ownership. No, I am not contradicting myself. I believe software CAN be owned. I also believe it is up to the creator/owner of that software to determine how to license it. I believe in copyright law because I DO believe in the concept of intellectual property. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2009 12:00 PM EDT |
@Libervis Allow me to rephrase my question, as it probably was not clear. You support legal property rights for something physical (or more accurately, rivalrous goods) but not nonrivalrous goods. I don't see the clear distinction between the two. Perhaps you can explain why it's not just a matter of arbitrary preference. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 12:22 PM EDT |
The reason people don't release them to the public domain should be obvious; because the system allows them to earn more if they don't. Clearly that can only result in slower adoption of innovative products as the price is kept artificially high. The enticement again is the value inherent in the product. If you start a project to fill your own particular need you don't even need to put it on the market for the project to be a success, but you can still sell it to earn whatever you can earn. If however you are starting a project solely to fill the needs of others then that completely depends on how much other people value what you have to offer. If they don't value it enough to cover your costs then you either failed in your market assessments or marketing (actually letting people know how could your innovation serve them). I don't see why would anything else be necessary here aside from being a way to either force people to pay for what they otherwise wouldn't or to force them to pay more than they actually value the product because they have no choice. I also don't see how this artificial inflation can do anything but detriment overall progress in society. |
| hkwint Jun 25, 2009 12:22 PM EDT |
One more: Suppose you have Microsoft shares (or IBM shares, if owning the first is beyond your imagination). I buy one. I copy 50 million and sell them to unsuspecting buyers. You think that should be legal, right, because I didn't deprive you nor anyone else of anything, isn't it? (Note: I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, but 'shares' need a medium such as paper, and you claimed anything that relies on a medium cannot be owned). |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 12:37 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, OK. At least you make your position clear and remain without contradiction presented in my article. Someone who does believe in intellectual property is perfectly consistent with what FSF, SFLC do (as well as RIAA, MPAA etc.). --- Bigg: It's not just because they're nonrivalrous goods. Ideas, software etc. cannot exist without rival goods. If you proclaim ideas as ownership you thus immediately proclaim the right to control other people's property. It is inevitable because ideas cannot exist without that property. This is why claiming the right to control how you share your software is exactly akin to claiming the right to control how one uses his computer, disks and other media. If for one thing to be property another property right must be violated something is clearly wrong. Either you have to reject one thing as property or the other and rejecting ownership over physical things amounts to rejecting self-ownership as well because YOU yourself are the medium for ideas. That'd essentially be condoning slavery. If you reject ownership of ideas self-ownership remains and thus you remain free and slavery becomes wrong. Which of the two would you choose? --- Hkwint: Shares are a form of agreement not a nonrivalrous good. It is akin to promises/contracts etc. You cannot copy somebody elses promise. That would be lying and thus fraud. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 12:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:The reason people don't release them to the public domain should be obvious; because the system allows them to earn more if they don't. Clearly that can only result in slower adoption of innovative products as the price is kept artificially high. Absent the profit motive (or even the ability to make a living) there is very little if any incentive to innovate. Innovation isn't slowed by copyright and patents. It is largely made possible by copyright and patents. The ownership of and ability to profit from one's own creativity is the greatest possible incentive to be creative and innovative. Quoting:So if we want advances, we need to pay for them. The current system works for that. It is not a perfect system and has lots of room for improvement. My question to you is, in your system how to you entice people to innovate and share their ideas others? Precisely. There is no enticement. The concept that it would happen without enticement is every bit as much utopian fantasy as Marx's original concept of Communism. Greed is part of human nature. The desire to advance oneself and our own interests is part of human nature. After "Communist" or "Marxist" revolutions (which were neither) the state did not wither away as Marx predicted and a "workers paradise" was never established because any system that is contrary to human nature and human desire can never be established. It doesn't matter if the utopian fantasy is from the political left (as in Communism) or the right (as in Libertarianism). It's still fantasy. Quoting:If you know of a way that we can compensate for research and development for such things while still maintaining absolute freedom I am willing to listen. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. That's another fantasy. Society puts limits on your freedom to deprive me of life or freedom or property. For society to function limits on freedom are an absolute necessity. Freedom in the real world is always relative. It is very easy to see how, for example, most of Europe, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, etc... are relatively free compared to totalitarian or dictatorial states. It is certainly easy for anyone watching the news the last few weeks to see how Iran is relatively unfree. The key to finding the proper balance is to extend the greatest possible individual freedom without granting the ability for one person's freedom to deny another person or group of people of that same freedom. If it sounds like I am arguing for a capitalist system it's because I am. I know I was accused of being socialist in another thread. I'll say here what I said there: all successful economies are a blending of the two. The minute you start talking about absolutes, including absolute freedom; the minute you start talking about any sort of ideological purity you almost always have stepped outside of the realm of reality. Oh, and Libervis, you claim that my position is consistent with what the FSF is trying to do and with what the RIAA or MPAA are trying to do. In fact I support none of the above. OK, I believe that the GPL is a positive contribution by the FSF. I can point to other positive things they did as well. I do not, however, subscribe to Richard Stallman's philosophy or ideology any more than I support some of the lawsuits that the RIAA has launched. One can take a functional and decent system and misuse it. That doesn't mean you throw out the entire system. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
> If you proclaim ideas as ownership you thus immediately proclaim the right to control other people's property. Like the right to prevent someone from using a gun to shoot someone else? That doesn't really strike me as problematic. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 1:03 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, did I say anything against profit? Of course that without profit there is no innovation. You somehow think that it is impossible for an innovator to profit if he doesn't get a monopoly on implementations of his idea or all copies of his intellectual work. That is a common myth and the FOSS itself partly dispels it. Copyright and patents are nothing but forcing the hands of the market actors to keep the prices higher than they should be. The result isn't more innovation, but more concentration of wealth and corporatism (which go hand in hand). Quoting:The key to finding the proper balance is to extend the greatest possible individual freedom without granting the ability for one person's freedom to deny another person or group of people of that same freedom. But you're advocating exactly the opposite by claiming you have the right to decide instead of me how I should behave (democracy). But you're dangerously close to delving into the political realm (albeit by your own and TCs inconsistent and contradictory definitions espoused in a recently deleted discussion). |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
Bigg: Shooting someone is a property violation itself (self-ownership). If you violate somebody elses property you're giving up your own equivalent, which is exactly what makes self defense acceptable. |
| bigg Jun 25, 2009 1:09 PM EDT |
> If you violate somebody elses property you're giving up your own equivalent, which is exactly what makes self defense acceptable. I don't understand that statement at all. You give up your own equivalent to whom? |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
To the one you violate. I attempt to kill you, you may be right in killing me in self defense. By intentionally endangering your life I have forfeited the right to mine, to you or those whom you immediately or prior authorized to defend you. That could go offtopic though. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:You somehow think that it is impossible for an innovator to profit if he doesn't get a monopoly on implementations of his idea or all copies of his intellectual work. That is partially correct. The innovator should get full control, what you call a monopoly and what I call freedom, to decide how his work should be distributed. Where this statement does not reflect my views is the idea that he or she (please watch the sexist language) is entitled to control of all implementations of an idea. This is where the concept of software patents as they exist in the U.S. is flawed. Let's say everyone involved in this thread enters a programming competition. We are given a problem. For the sake of argument let's assume everyone here is a competent programmer and that a solution is within the capabilities of everyone here. There are no restrictions of how the solution is to be achieved nor are there any guidelines regarding style or structure of the resulting code. Hans and I can write a solution that is based on the same concept or idea yet have code that doesn't have a single line in common. Our respective solutions could be written in entirely different languages. However our basic ideas, our concepts of how the solution should be reached, can be all but identical. Neither Hans nor I nor anyone else should have "monopoly control" over the concept. However, each of us should own our respective code, hold copyright to that code, and should each be able to determine how that code is to be distributed. Quoting:Copyright and patents are nothing but forcing the hands of the market actors to keep the prices higher than they should be. I completely disagree with this statement and everything that logically follows from it. Copyrights and patents protect those who create innovative works. They have absolutely nothing to do with price. I can write code and then choose to distribute it for free and still retain copyright. That is precisely how FOSS works today. Quoting:The result isn't more innovation, but more concentration of wealth and corporatism (which go hand in hand). Copyrights and patents protect either indivduals or corporations. They do not favor corporations over individuals. A corporation is nothing more than a legal framework to determine how a business is organized and taxed. There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. The desire to attain wealth is a basic part of human nature. Those who are, in fact, creative and innovative deserve to be compensated for their work product fairly. Yes, that can mean greater compensation for someone who produces something that is truly revolutionary or even for someone who is simply a very productive person. I do not believe in the Communist concept that distribution of wealth has to be equal. Quoting:But you're advocating exactly the opposite by claiming you have the right to decide instead of me how I should behave (democracy). That is completely consistent with what I am advocating. Please remember that I said that freedom is not absolute. Society can restrict freedom in a reasonable way to protect the freedoms of others. All freedom is relative in nature. This is not in any way contradictory with granting the greatest possible individual freedom within reasonable restrictions. Let me give an example. You have freedom of speech but it is limited. There are certain types of speech that are not protected and are, in fact, restricted. Libel, slander, and defamation of character are not protected in the U.S. You have no right to incite violence or a riot. You famously do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire because the results are likely to cause harm. Some European countries go further by restricting hate speech. One can argue that restriction already exists to a certain extent in the U.S. since incitement isn't protected speech. Hate speech laws go further. The key, as always, is to find a balance. How much freedom can be granted to you without taking freedom away from me? That is always open to debate and that is why we have the political system and discourse we have. It is also why we need laws and an independent judiciary. So yes, society (not me personally) is, in fact, dictating your behavior to a limited extent. That is a GOOD thing. Quoting:But you're dangerously close to delving into the political realm (albeit by your own and TCs inconsistent and contradictory definitions espoused in a recently deleted discussion). Our definitions were completely consistent. Using those definitions your article is political in nature and should never have been published on LXer.com in the first place. The article itself reads as a TOS violation to me. By definition any on topic discussion of your article would therefore also be political in nature. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 1:37 PM EDT |
Theboomboomcars wrote, > Without these protections, there won't be as many advances While this is indeed the reasoning behind patent and copyright laws, I don't see it as settled one way or the other. Mostly because it's my opinion that the logic is wrong, and it's lots of other people's opinion that it's right. As a counter example, I offer science. Openly published, ideas and discoveries spread as quickly as possible, and deliberately utilized and built upon by other scientists to produce new theories, ideas and discoveries. "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants." Using the example of basic science, it is my opinion that without the government monopoly grants of copyright and patent there would be far GREATER development of ideas, in breadth, depth, quantity and quality. Using the example of how people use the materials that are in the public domain, it is my opinion that the horrible abuses alluded to by those who support the monopoly grants would not be either as wide spread or as terrible as is implied. Would we really be better off without "Variations on a Theme by Paganini", "Shakespeare In Love" or several dozen different versions of "Hamlet"? Hasn't the RIAA taught us that the abuses of the system are legion? I don't see any way to decry the abuses, but still support the system itself. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 1:46 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, You responded to the question, >> Do you believe software cannot be owned? with > Yes, absolutely. Thus the confusion. It's clear to me that you simply got the negative in the wrong place, and that you do "absolutely" believe that software CAN be owned. > I do believe that copyrights can and should exist to protect the creators of various works. I also do believe that patents should exist. I understand your position. If only it were consistant. > Software patents are a special case since an idea can be arrived at in any number of ways. I do have a problem with software patents. But the same thing could be said of everything that patent covers, which is why I see your disagreement with "software" patents to be inconsistent with your support of patents in general. My personal opinion is that you yourself are effected by software patents, and you are therefore able to discern the destructive nature of the patent system. But rather than see the patent system as what is destructive, you've chosen to limit your discernment to the specific case in order to not challenge your preconception of "patent is good". |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't see any way to decry the abuses, but still support the system itself. To misuse a cliche: this line says that the bathwater is dirty so there is no way to save the baby. The system is flawed, yes, but not irrepairably so. It can be reformed without throwing it out. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 1:50 PM EDT |
> The system is flawed, yes, but not irrepairably so. It can be reformed without throwing it out. How? By extending copyright/patent to the extreme, the problems with the system have been demonstrated beyond the ability to ignore them. If patent/copyright were still as limited in scope as they were at first, those abuses would still exist, it would simply be difficult to argue against it because the negatives would be so limited in scope. Yes, you misuse that cliche. What I am trying to do is throw out the dirty bathwater, so that the baby CAN get clean, Rather than keep the dirty bathwater and fool myself into thinking that just because it's "bathwater" therefore the baby must be getting clean. It is the nature of the system itself, the granting of legal monopoly, that is the abuse. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Thus the confusion. It's clear to me that you simply got the negative in the wrong place, and that you do "absolutely" believe that software CAN be owned. That is correct. Quoting:But the same thing could be said of everything that patent covers, which is why I see your disagreement with "software" patents to be inconsistent with your support of patents in general. Not so, and my position is completely consistent. As originally conceived a patent protected the inventor of a physical device, not an abstract concept. If I build the proverbial better mousetrap I own the design. I can license it to a company and they can build mousetraps but they have to pay me a fee or royalty based on my ownership of the patent. Patent law places a limit on how long I or my heirs can maintain that ownership of design. Software patents are different because they claim ownership of abstractions and ideas which can be reached with any variety of designs. I think I explained that adequately in my last post with the hypothetical software competition. Quoting:My personal opinion is that you yourself are effected by software patents, and you are therefore able to discern the destructive nature of the patent system. Not so. Software patents are conceptually different from patents on physical designs. I do not see the patent system as inherently destructive. I do not discern that to be true at all. Quoting: But rather than see the patent system as what is destructive, you've chosen to limit your discernment to the specific case in order to not challenge your preconception of "patent is good". Now you are trying to dismiss my ideas as "preconceptions" and willfull blindness. Such dismissals make intelligent debate impossible. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 1:54 PM EDT |
Quoting:It is the nature of the system itself, the granting of legal monopoly, that is the abuse. This assumption, this premise, in my view is completely flawed. It sums up our differences in a nutshell. I'd say we've reached a logical impasse. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 2:01 PM EDT |
> I'd say we've reached a logical impasse. Not logical, actually, just an impasse. I do not believe you're being logical, you don't believe I'm being logical, QED. > Such dismissals make intelligent debate impossible. Which is exactly how I see your position. I've often asserted your ideas as "preconceptions" and willfull blindness, please don't act surprised. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 2:01 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, so you effectively support controlling second hand transactions involving intellectual arrangements of one type over another. There isn't that much of difference between what copyright and patents apply to. They're both information, ideas.. just differently arranged and presented. I agree copyright doesn't *always* result in price inflation (FOSS example), but given the exclusivity it offers "copyright holders" it has provided enough incentive for proprietary software to become dominant and for companies like Microsoft to keep the price of an operating system as high as they are, inflating the price of computers commonly sold to most users. Without copyright, there would've been no threat for the Free Software movement to develop against. And if you really believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the institution of a corporation I really recommend you watch "The Corporation". You still insist that a "society" is more than a concept, an entity that has a will of its own and can validly impose limitations on people's freedom. As for calling the entire article political... by some definitions it may be, but if that is against TOS then LXer staff is breaking it quite consistently. There have been many articles speaking about similar subjects, copyright, software patents etc. But frankly I am really sick of this pattern of yours, beginning a political offtopic discussion and then blaming me for TOS violations according to your own personal convenient interpretations. I'm considering leaving these forums for good. Each time it is becoming more and more clear that intellectual dishonesty is a common trait in this community and that staff doesn't really care much for making their stand clear. |
| caitlyn Jun 25, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm considering leaving these forums for good. Each time it is becoming more and more clear that intellectual dishonesty is a common trait in this community and that staff doesn't really care much for making their stand clear. A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. Your whole article and the discussion that ensued was ideological and political in nature. Therefore any response by me or by anyone else discussion the content was political and therefore a TOS violation. You were trolling from the start. Oh, and I do understand your point: If someone agrees with you it isn't a TOS violation. If they challenge the concepts you present it is. Talk about personally convenient! Anyone who disagrees with you or points out that the discussion is political in nature and that the TOS calls for no political discussion is "intellectually dishonest"? Really? Perhaps you should look in the mirror when making that accusation. Oh, and if you and Bob R. left I suspect there would be little political discussion left and very few if any TOS violations. Why is that? How would I be to blame? |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 2:20 PM EDT |
You're essentially parroting myself. You might have as well said "right back atcha". You usually start with "TOS violations" accusations yourself, not me, so you cannot claim that I use that weapon against those whom disagree with me. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 2:24 PM EDT |
(I am going to suggest staff to define political discussions on LXer clearly enough as to not leave room for further speculation, subjective interpretations and conflict and distrust that arises from that.). Please PM me if you agree this is a good idea. Thanks |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 25, 2009 3:06 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, > Oh, and if you and Bob R. left I suspect there would be little political discussion left and very few if any TOS violations. Why is that? Because you don't consider the things you agree with to be TOS violations. Since Libervis and I diametrically oppose your position on several subjects, you consider our postings to be TOS violations. > How would I be to blame? You're not to blame. It's human nature to find no offense in that with which we agree. Recognizing that disagreement does not equal personal endangerment is part of being civilized. "Sticks and stones" and all that. Having this discussion here, in this thread connected to this story, the "political" aspects are NOT TOS violations in my opinion. It's not like anyone has said "Democrats Good Republicans Bad" or any other distraction. Since copyright/patent are a political subject, since the existence of such laws makes it political, having a "political" discussion on the subject is not merely accepted it would be IMPOSSIBLE to talk about copyright/patent without it being in some way political. So, fair Lady, I guess we're stuck. So long as articles on copyright/patent or the laws or governmental effects on F/OSS are posted, "political" posts will be made. ...unless all governmental action in the realm of F/OSS is eliminated, which I don't expect any of us thinks is likely. |
| Libervis Jun 25, 2009 3:11 PM EDT |
> ..unless all governmental action in the realm of F/OSS is eliminated, which I don't expect any of us thinks is likely. Except perhaps in New Hampshire, sometime this century. ;) |
| theboomboomcars Jun 25, 2009 3:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:As a counter example, I offer science. Openly published, ideas and discoveries spread as quickly as possible, and deliberately utilized and built upon by other scientists to produce new theories, ideas and discoveries. "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants." I fully agree that building on someone else's idea is a good thing, and is allowed under copyright law, the whole derivative works thing. One weak point of point to science as a way of showing how innovation can succeed without the hindrances of copyright/patents is that significant amounts of scientific research is paid for by government grants, thus the enticement to do the research. That is also why free software is so great, it allows you to build on others ideas, and others to build on yours. That is the same reasoning why many prefer the GPL to BSD. The GPL forces this sharing, where as with BSD you can take my idea, build upon it then not allow others to build on yours. |
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!