Is copyright wrong?

[phrostbyte]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?

[kool_kat_os]

nevermind....

[jgrabham]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?

Not without abandoning western morality and switching to communism, but that's a subject for the backyard.

[Joeb454]

No it isn't wrong, else it would be called Copywrong, not Copyright

</sarcasm>

;)

[Sporkman]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

It's not hoarding knowledge, it's preventing others from profiting off your creative work.

[doas777]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?


I don;t know about reward, that is a complex topic I'm not up to tonight,
but no, I don't believe in imaginary property, especially for cultural artifacts.

I do believe in the patent system, in it's original context, because i don't want good ideas lost, but it's been taken much too far these days.If we can get rid of process and software patents, we'll be doing alright.

[angryfirelord]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?
I think that would apply more to patents, which should be abolished immediately. (because all that does is stifle innovation) Copyright is still something I think should exist, but it needs to be reformed.

http://www.copyrightreform.us/

[nickgaydos]

No it isn't wrong, else it would be called Copywrong, not Copyright

</sarcasm>

;)

Lol!

[NovaAesa]

IMO copyright is extremely important. It gives the author of the intellectual property in question the right to do with it as he or she pleases. Imagine if there were no copyright: MS would be able to take Linux code and use it in their systems without realeasing the code, people would be able to distribute music without paying for it, there would be very little incentive for anyone to create any new intellectual property.

[bp1509]

d

[Sporkman]

It has nothing to do with switching to communism. From a libertarian perspective, copyright and patent laws can be viewed as socialistic as the government grants a person or a corporation a permanent (or temporary ) monopoly on that.


No - libertarianism recognizes property rights.

[fballem]

If I create something, or discover a way of doing something, then it should be my choice as to how that creation or discovery are used. Copyright for intellectual property allows that to happen, at least to some extent. As part of that, I may want recognition - in whatever form is acceptable to me.

In the same vein, if I use something that someone else has created or discovered, then I have an obligation to use it in a way that is acceptable to them. Copyright for intellectual property allows that to happen. This includes extending that creation or discovery, which is how the open source licenses work.

Others have chosen to share their creations and discoveries with us - and that's important - it was their choice and we are bound to respect those choices and the conditions under which we are allowed to use those creations.

Without incentives, why would people want to create or discover anything. I never lived under communism, but from what I've studied, that was always one of the major weaknesses of the system - there is no incentive to innovate.

So to answer the question: Copyright is not wrong.

[days_of_ruin]

Copyrights and patents are very important for innovation.
Whats the incentive to invent something if someone else will just
steal it and make money off of your hard work.

And stop comparing OSS to communism or socialism.

btw many developers make money coding open source software.And even you
don't get money you get recognition.

[cardinals_fan]

Copyright != patents.

With that said, I would have no problem with software patents if the were literally software patents - if someone wants to patent a chunk of code, they should have that right. My issue is with intellectual property - the idea that one can patent one's ideas. Patenting the code for a double-click function is fine with me, patenting the IDEA for a double-click function isn't.

[phrostbyte]

If I create something, or discover a way of doing something, then it should be my choice as to how that creation or discovery are used. Copyright for intellectual property allows that to happen, at least to some extent. As part of that, I may want recognition - in whatever form is acceptable to me.

In the same vein, if I use something that someone else has created or discovered, then I have an obligation to use it in a way that is acceptable to them. Copyright for intellectual property allows that to happen. This includes extending that creation or discovery, which is how the open source licenses work.

Others have chosen to share their creations and discoveries with us - and that's important - it was their choice and we are bound to respect those choices and the conditions under which we are allowed to use those creations.

Without incentives, why would people want to create or discover anything. I never lived under communism, but from what I've studied, that was always one of the major weaknesses of the system - there is no incentive to innovate.

So to answer the question: Copyright is not wrong.

I think copyright is inherently wrong because I think it is wrong to horde knowledge, and that is manifested in software, books, music, etc.

Every human being should have a fundamental, inalienable right of access the sum of human knowledge and discovery, and the freedom to build on that and express that knowledge in any wish he or she pleases. Copyright is at odds with this.

I think the open source / free culture movement proves there is no need for the economic incentives of copyright, but I would greatly prefer if there was a system in place where those who provides such things which are available for all to use and share would be compensated for their work. The way the system is set up right now, it gives too much incentive to restrict access, which is very bad.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well in retrospect copyrights and patents are not at fault, its how people abuse them that makes things bad.
I know if I had an idea that I wanted to protect I would want to patent/ copyright it but some people go too far.

[swoll1980]

Copyright laws also protect projects like GNU from getting taken advantage of by a company like MS

[phrostbyte]

I know if I had an idea that I wanted to protect I would want to patent/ copyright

Why?

[swoll1980]

Why?

The ffs has quite a few copyrights if I'm not mistaken, as does Linus Torvalds

[phrostbyte]

Copyright laws also protect projects like GNU from getting taken advantage of by a company like MS

GNU doesn't take a very positive stance on the idea of copyright (at least with regards with software):

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

Copyright is the law which take away rights which GNU/FSF believe are fundamental freedoms.

[swoll1980]

GNU doesn't take a very positive stance on the idea of copyright (at least with regards with software):

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

Copyright is the law which take away rights which GNU/FSF believe are fundamental freedoms.

Actions speak louder than words for some people that are so against copyrights they sure have a lot of them

[SunnyRabbiera]

Why?

well I am a writer, in todays competitive world its always good to protect yourself.
Have you ever heard of plagiarism?
Well I personally want my works protected in some sort against that sort of thing, in todays society its a good idea to protect an idea.

[phrostbyte]

well I am a writer, in todays competitive world its always good to protect yourself.
Have you ever heard of plagiarism?
Well I personally want my works protected in some sort against that sort of thing, in todays society its a good idea to protect an idea.

You didn't say anything specific, just that it is a "good idea", why is it a good idea?

Nothing confrontational here, just curious on your rational.. is it only plagiarism?

[SunnyRabbiera]

You didn't say anything specific, just that it is a "good idea", why is it a good idea?

Nothing confrontational here, just curious on your rational..

Well in the case of being a writer I want my creative works protected, I dont know how hard that is to understand.
I dont want some idiot to come along and steal my ideas to make money while I feel like crap for not protecting it.
I dont want people to claim my ideas as their own, I dont want some moron to make his way off with my ideas while I sit and bang my head against a wall.
For writers a copyright makes sense, I want to protect my ideas is that so wrong?

[phrostbyte]

Well in the case of being a writer I want my creative works protected, I dont know how hard that is to understand.
I dont want some idiot to come along and steal my ideas to make money while I feel like crap for not protecting it.
I dont want people to claim my ideas as their own, I dont want some moron to make his way off with my ideas while I sit and bang my head against a wall.
For writers a copyright makes sense, I want to protect my ideas is that so wrong?

As a matter of a fact I think it is wrong. When you think about it, who's ideas are they really? Do they come up from divine providence or do they come from somewhere else? All ideas are built from other ideas, or from nature. I don't believe there is a single original idea, because that's just not how the World works.

Now, if you want to be compensated on your time I completely agree, I think if someone does something useful for the World or humanity as a whple, it is a FAILURE of the economy if that person is not compensated for this action. Now why aren't many FOSS developers compensated? Are they not doing useful work? I'll tell you why: because copyright doesn't favor FOSS, it favors hoarders who want to add a price tag and an artificial limit on knowledge, which could be infinitely copied otherwise.

It's so wrong, and it needs to change.

[SunnyRabbiera]

As a matter of a fact I think it is wrong. When you think about it, who's ideas are they really? Do they come up from divine providence or do they come from somewhere else? All ideas are built from other ideas, or from nature. I don't believe there is a single original idea, because that's just not how the World works.

Now, if you want to be compensated on your time I completely agree, I think if someone does something useful for the World or humanity as a whple, it is a FAILURE of the economy if that person is not compensated for this action. Now why aren't many FOSS developers compensated? Are they not doing useful work? I'll tell you why: because copyright doesn't favor FOSS, it favors hoarders who want to add a price tag and an artificial limit on knowledge, which could be infinitely copied otherwise.

It's so wrong, and it needs to change.

Well here is a question for you.
Say if you do come up with a story and want to publish it, you have worked on this idea for 10 years and now you are ready to unleash it.
You decide to publish it on your own and take all the measures to make sure it gets on the market.
Then one day you are in your office with your manuscript laying on the table and you leave it open by mistake when you go back home for the night.
Then Bob the janitor comes by, he finds your wonderful book you worked so long and hard on and he basically ripps your name off the cover pages and he goes to a publisher and makes a million dollars with it.
You cant fight him, as with his money he can fight you off at every turn, and you with you protected your work some how...
Like a copyright date.
I know for you there are no new ideas but its all in principal, I had a best seller here and it was taken over by some hack who barely graduated high school.
Sure this world is corrupt I know but we live in a competitive world, I just want to make sure that my mark is known thats all.
I dont want to sound greedy, but I want to keep my ideas safe thank you very much.

[toupeiro]

Copyright != patents.

With that said, I would have no problem with software patents if the were literally software patents - if someone wants to patent a chunk of code, they should have that right. My issue is with intellectual property - the idea that one can patent one's ideas. Patenting the code for a double-click function is fine with me, patenting the IDEA for a double-click function isn't.

Huzzah! +1

Sunny: You have a good arguement, unfortunately people are taking intellectual property patents much further than the scenarios you are describing. It is entirely possible for two people to have the same idea without stealing it or even knowing anything about you and your idea. If you patent it first, you SHOULD just be making it legally yours for the purpose writing a book. Ok, so you write your book, you get a patent on the idea described in your book, but it has not been published yet, so there is no way I could have read it. Now, I take my idea which again, unknown to me, is exactly like yours and I make an independant film about it, and it gets bloody famous My movie is copywritten, it belongs to me, as it is.. The name may be different, and so may the names of the characters of your book, but we aren't talking about someone who blatantly plagiarized your work. We're talking about my idea for a movie which was based on the same idea as your book. You see my movie and see the same idea applied in your book and decide to sue me for intellectual property patent infringement. How exactly is that just? If I followed that logic to the fullest extreme, I should just patent the ideas of free form thought, applied free will with creative license and start suing everybody now!

If they had intellectual property rights the way they do now, back when they released the movie Jaws, and that guy patented the idea of a man eating shark stalking a beach community and a few people on a leaky boat were going to catch it, for better or worse, nobody else could ever tell that story legally.

When it comes to technology, I can come up with an idea of a fold-up 40" plasma television that you can fit in a backpack, and patent that idea, and just sit and wait for someone to actually develop the technology to do it, and sue the heck out of them for taking my idea... Thats just wrong! Having an idea, and having the means to make that idea something functional or tangible should be the differentiator, and I hope someday that it will be that way again.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Huzzah! +1

Sunny: You have a good arguement, unfortunately people are taking intellectual property patents much further than the scenarios you are describing. It is entirely possible for two people to have the same idea without stealing it or even knowing anything about you and your idea. If you patent it first, you SHOULD just be making it legally yours for the purpose writing a book. Ok, so you write your book, you get a patent on the idea described in your book, but it has not been published yet, so there is no way I could have read it. Now, I take my idea which again, unknown to me, is exactly like yours and I make an independant film about it, and it gets bloody famous My movie is copywritten, it belongs to me, as it is.. The name may be different, and so may the names of the characters of your book, but we aren't talking about someone who blatantly plagiarized your work. We're talking about my idea for a movie which was based on the same idea as your book. You see my movie and decide to sue me for intellectual property patent infringement. How exactly is that just? I should just patent the ideas of free form thought, applied free will with creative license and start suing everybody now!


Well in my case I feel the need to protect myself, I am not out to sue anybody just to make sure that my time spent on my project isn't wasted.
I am not claiming IP, hell for me if someone has a similar idea I say let them go and do it as long as its not a blatant ripoff like having characters with similar names, the same scenarios as I do and such.
I actually want to put my works under an artistic license, so that people can share in my ideas the way I want them to.
I am not opposed to free feedback, I am not opposed to fan material, but I am opposed to some nut coming by and saying that the ideas are his and the ideas I had for years are his as well.
Look this is not about free vs not free this is about human nature.
And it is my own nature to cling to something as long as possible and I intend on doing that.
Dont like it, tough but hey I have the rights to do as I wish with my ideas.

[toupeiro]

e to cling to something as long as possible and I intend on doing that.
Dont like it, tough but hey I have the rights to do as I wish with my ideas.

You're right, but my point is, The law will only protect your ideas if you happened, by chance, to patent them before somebody else who had the same idea as you. Sure, you may be the only one that saw your idea to fruition but with the way things are now, that doesn't matter. There are people who make a career out of intellectual patent headhunting. Not everyone has the same moral stance as you do. That's what I don't like. Ethics and capitalism are like oil and water in todays world, like it or not. Protect your work until the ends of the earth, but that doesn't mean you should have any legal precedence over my ability to freely come up with the same fundamental idea and work with it myself to make a name for how I presented my idea. Maybe my method is better than yours, maybe its not, but because you patented the idea, that shouldn't disqualify me from applying my idea a different way.

Intellectual Property in the sense of patenting ideas is broken, and if implemented early on, there would be no innovation left by now. Imagine for a moment, if the man who created the inspector gadget cartoon had patented the idea of a man with a technical gadget that allowed him to glide through the air as soon as wind hit it, but it could fold up into his gadget suit until he needed it, then sued the director of The Dark Knight for Batmans latest costume? Its a ridiculous example, but its also really a ridiculous type of patent.

[Closed_Port]

http://www.worldbank.org/knowledge/chiefecon/articles/undpk2/w2wtoc.htm

A great article on the subject explaining the economic implications of intellectual property rights.

[fballem]

Thanks for pointing out the article, which does identify the issues clearly.

There will be no progress or development of ideas if there is no incentive to do so. The need to encourage the development of ideas needs to be balanced with the public benefit of having access to the idea and being able to develop it further.

In the absence of any other way to develop the balance between protection and availability, we have to rely on governments to provide that balance - and they have not always done a good job of that.

In answer to the question, "Is Copyright wrong?", the answer is clearly 'no', since it is the means to protect an idea and the interests of the person or persons who develop the idea.

Has the government struck the correct balance between protection and availability - in some cases 'yes', in some cases 'no'. Each individual in our discussion would be able to argue that the government erred in specific cases and specific circumstances. As the article makes clear, each case needs to be considered on its own merits - but often the consideration is subject to political factors that will be used in that assessment.

So, our question may not be 'Is Copyright wrong?', but rather, 'Is Copyright correctly applied in the case of ...?'.

To paraphrase several contributors, "The same copyright protection that applies to Microsoft also applies to FOSS." The rules are the same and that is not unreasonable. That Microsoft has chosen to share the development of its intellectual property in a fashion that is different than FOSS is a matter of choice.

Microsoft cannot use FOSS licensed code in its products, because the code is protected by a license that doesn't allow it. The code is copyright and that makes the license enforceable. FOSS cannot use Microsoft code in its products for the same reasons.

What is starting to happen is that FOSS, through the development of its ideas, is now starting to be able to compete with Microsoft. It will take time, but more people are starting to discover the benefits of FOSS.

Some, like me, are looking at FOSS as a very viable alternative to Microsoft Windows for a variety of reasons - including Vista and the changes made to the Office applications.

Years ago, WordPerfect was a very dominant word processing application. I worked for an organization that adopted WordPerfect as the corporate standard. Then Microsoft came out with Windows (version 3.1). WordPerfect was very slow off the mark, and the first few versions for Windows simply didn't work. Within a year of the release of Windows, we had switched to Microsoft Word, because it worked in the environment in which we wished to work - and WordPerfect did not.

What will hopefully happen, and has already happened in many cases, is that both Microsoft and FOSS will benefit from each other as they compete. The existence of Copyright provides the incentive for them to compete. Microsoft bears all of the risk for the development of its ideas. If they bet wrong, then the risk is theirs, like it was with WordPerfect. If they bet right, then the reward should be theirs as well.

Software prices have come down over time through competition. I can remember when a wordprocessing program cost around CAD 700 per copy. Lotus 1-2-3 used to cost more than that. Word can now be purchased for around CAD 300 per copy. Microsoft Standard, which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook can be purchased for less than CAD 500.

It's a matter of choice. If the corporation that I work for chooses to use Microsoft, and is willing to pay for that choice, then that's fine. I have found a viable set of alternatives that work for me. When I do work for the corporation, I will happily use what they ask me to. When I work for me, I will use what I choose. The competition has benefited everyone.

[karellen]

if I create/invent something I want my work to be recognized as such. the creator has the right to decide what to do with his works
tell a writer that his books shouldn't be copyrighted :lolflag:

[fatality_uk]

No it isn't wrong, else it would be called Copywrong, not Copyright

</sarcasm>

;)

:lol: chuckle

[NovaAesa]

@phrostbyte

Let me pose this question to you: are you a software developer? Forgive me if you are (as the following won't apply to you). Quite franqly, you don't seem to have a clue about what it would be for someone to pass your programme off as theirs. If you understood what it was like to make software and all the hard work that goes in, maybe you would be singing a different tune...

[tom66]

Copyright doesn't have a problem, it's just how people and companies exercise their right on infringers. For example, RIAA & co. suing everyone who so much as downloads mp3s from a file sharing website. While this is copyright infringement, it does not boil down to a $1,000+ fine/lawsuit which they can't protest.

[SunnyRabbiera]

You're right, but my point is, The law will only protect your ideas if you happened, by chance, to patent them before somebody else who had the same idea as you. Sure, you may be the only one that saw your idea to fruition but with the way things are now, that doesn't matter. There are people who make a career out of intellectual patent headhunting. Not everyone has the same moral stance as you do. That's what I don't like. Ethics and capitalism are like oil and water in todays world, like it or not. Protect your work until the ends of the earth, but that doesn't mean you should have any legal precedence over my ability to freely come up with the same fundamental idea and work with it myself to make a name for how I presented my idea. Maybe my method is better than yours, maybe its not, but because you patented the idea, that shouldn't disqualify me from applying my idea a different way.

Intellectual Property in the sense of patenting ideas is broken, and if implemented early on, there would be no innovation left by now. Imagine for a moment, if the man who created the inspector gadget cartoon had patented the idea of a man with a technical gadget that allowed him to glide through the air as soon as wind hit it, but it could fold up into his gadget suit until he needed it, then sued the director of The Dark Knight for Batmans latest costume? Its a ridiculous example, but its also really a ridiculous type of patent.

Well I cannot account for other authors or writers, I said I am willing to make my works open source for the most part and put them under a artistic (creative commons most likely) license.
By putting my works under a creative commons license dont I meet the ideals of open source?
I certainly hope so, open source in terms of creative works is a double edged sword so my goal is to be as open source as possible while protecting my ideas from being stolen.
With the way you guys act it seems I am the criminal here, that I am in the wrong for wanting to protect myself.
Look I worked on my ideas for a long time, when you dedicate yourself to something you want to make sure you are rewarded.
This kind of blind idealism cannot exist in a non idealistic world, but one can try to make the best out of things by at least trying to make a open source approach to things which I will do.
But it feels like I am talking to a couple of brick walls here, so my part in this topic is over.

[uberdonkey5]

I don't believe the problem of copyright and patents is resolvable.

For example, if I own a drug company that develops a drug to cure aids I need an incentive to pour loads of money (without being certain of payback) into the research. However, if I am lucky, and produce this drug, of course I will patent it to recoup the money I have spent and make a profit (which is fair because it is a big risk - biotechnology start-ups are some of the riskiest businesses to invest in).

Thus, I sell my aids drug at a high price, but only the rich people can afford it and other people have to die, even though, the cost of PRODUCING the drug is very cheap. If there is patent laws, people have to die whilst realising they could be cured if the law didn't exist, conversely, if there isn't a patent law it is unlikely the drug would be developed in the first place.

I think time that a copyright or patent lasts is extremely important, and also that it is not and never will be an ideal system. As far as drug companies go, I think the balance is wrong as the big ones they make alot of profit.

As for software and music, although I love the hippy idea of there not being copyright, I think it is essential, as artists and programmers have to eat. However, it is ingenious what has happened with ubuntu: the money is made from consultancy and support. Similarly, many music artists give their music away for free (esp. starting artists), though if they become popular they want to make a living out of it.

Really ubuntu is like a hobby, and if it wasn't for dedicated people giving their time for free it would not work. Software like windows is normal and to be expected (although I think they do what the music industry does, and try to prevent open competition or control markets)... so I have little sympathy when they whine about pirating software/music.

However, open-source is very special, and I am grateful to all the people that support it, because it is the generosity of these people that keeps it alive. What is suprising is that people who are not paid to do this work continue to contribute and can compete with full time employers. My hat goes off to all these people, and hopefully one day I can give something back myself.

[Sporkman]

I think copyright is inherently wrong because I think it is wrong to horde knowledge, and that is manifested in software, books, music, etc.

Every human being should have a fundamental, inalienable right of access the sum of human knowledge and discovery, and the freedom to build on that and express that knowledge in any wish he or she pleases. Copyright is at odds with this.


How does copyright restrict your access to knowledge? You can read all the copyrighted books you want.

[karellen]

How does copyright restrict your access to knowledge? You can read all the copyrighted books you want.

I believe he meant "get them for free" ;)

[phrostbyte]

How does copyright restrict your access to knowledge? You can read all the copyrighted books you want.

Even if that's true (it isn't), you can't build on existing ideas or work. Which is interesting, because arguable everyone does this, even if they don't admit it. There is no original idea.

Every human being should have a fundamental, inalienable right of access the sum of human knowledge and discovery, and the freedom to build on that and express that knowledge in any wish he or she pleases.

[phrostbyte]

I don't believe the problem of copyright and patents is resolvable.

For example, if I own a drug company that develops a drug to cure aids I need an incentive to pour loads of money (without being certain of payback) into the research. However, if I am lucky, and produce this drug, of course I will patent it to recoup the money I have spent and make a profit (which is fair because it is a big risk - biotechnology start-ups are some of the riskiest businesses to invest in).

Thus, I sell my aids drug at a high price, but only the rich people can afford it and other people have to die, even though, the cost of PRODUCING the drug is very cheap. If there is patent laws, people have to die whilst realising they could be cured if the law didn't exist, conversely, if there isn't a patent law it is unlikely the drug would be developed in the first place.

I think time that a copyright or patent lasts is extremely important, and also that it is not and never will be an ideal system. As far as drug companies go, I think the balance is wrong as the big ones they make alot of profit.

As for software and music, although I love the hippy idea of there not being copyright, I think it is essential, as artists and programmers have to eat. However, it is ingenious what has happened with ubuntu: the money is made from consultancy and support. Similarly, many music artists give their music away for free (esp. starting artists), though if they become popular they want to make a living out of it.

Really ubuntu is like a hobby, and if it wasn't for dedicated people giving their time for free it would not work. Software like windows is normal and to be expected (although I think they do what the music industry does, and try to prevent open competition or control markets)... so I have little sympathy when they whine about pirating software/music.

However, open-source is very special, and I am grateful to all the people that support it, because it is the generosity of these people that keeps it alive. What is suprising is that people who are not paid to do this work continue to contribute and can compete with full time employers. My hat goes off to all these people, and hopefully one day I can give something back myself.

So you support the economic argument for copyright.. but as we see (and you provide an example) intellectual progress can be separated from copyright and patents. Other examples is NSF/NASA/DARPA. So copyrights and patents really aren't necessary from an economic perspective to advance the state of the science and the arts.

[karellen]

Every human being should have a fundamental, inalienable right of access the sum of human knowledge and discovery, and the freedom to build on that and express that knowledge in any wish he or she pleases.
as long as he doesn't pretend that others' works are his ;);
and I think you're wrong. there are and there will always be original ideas. it only takes intelligence and patience to develop them

[phrostbyte]

as long as he doesn't pretend that others' works are his ;);
and I think you're wrong. there are and there will always be original ideas. it only takes intelligence and patience to develop them

I advocate that ideas shouldn't have owners.

All ideas come form other ideas, to make a simple analogy, if this wasn't the case, we'd be reinventing the wheel over and over again.

Feel free to provide examples though.

[sydbat]

I said this.

"I advocate that ideas shouldn't have owners.

All ideas come form other ideas, to make a simple analogy, if this wasn't the case, we'd be reinventing the wheel over and over again.

Feel free to provide examples though."

Example enough for you??

Also, people are getting confused about what Copyright, Copywriting and Patents are. Here are some definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copywriting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

[Icehuck]

I advocate that ideas shouldn't have owners.

How do you get paid for your work when everyone is able do whatever with it?

[phrostbyte]

How do you get paid for your work when everyone is able do whatever with it?

There is a LOT of people making good money right now doing exactly what you describe, including cataloging the entire human genome: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=genome

So the point is pretty moot, even if it comes up a lot for whatever reason.

[karellen]

I advocate that ideas shouldn't have owners

I think it's a confusion here. Ideas don't have owners, or more precisely everybody owns his own thoughts ;)
as for the concrete manifestation of an idea, that's another piece of cake. example: you and million people probably share the idea that war is wrong, imoral and useless. fine. but I doubt you could write "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "A Farewell to Arms" :). I hope I made myself clear

[phrostbyte]

I think it's a confusion here. Ideas don't have owners, or more precisely everybody owns his own thoughts ;)
as for the concrete manifestation of an idea, that's another piece of cake. example: you and million people probably share the idea that war is wrong, imoral and useless. fine. but I doubt you could write "All Quiet on the Western Front" :). I hope I made myself clear

So simple ideas are always public domain, and complex ideas should be owned? Do you think "All Quiet on the Western Front" is fully original idea?

[karellen]

So simple ideas are always public domain, and complex ideas should be owned? Do you think "All Quiet on the Western Front" is fully original idea?

it's not just a complex idea. it's a book. a book = ideas + time + effort to write + literary talent + you-name-it. a book is wrote by someone. who had all the rights in world to do whatever he/she wants with his work. plain and simple. I fail to understand what's the issue here

[Sporkman]

There is a LOT of people making good money right now doing exactly what you describe, including cataloging the entire human genome: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=genome

So the point is pretty moot, even if it comes up a lot for whatever reason.

Funny you should cite a project whose source of money is a government. Where do governments get this "good money" that these researchers are "making"?

[aysiu]

I have mixed feelings about this, and I think even the hardcore "free software" people do, too:
As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are conscientious they will change the manual too—so they can provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they change the program, does not fill our community's needs. I'll give you a few examples of things I've been involved with and my feelings about ownership and freedom.

1. I'm not a programmer, but I did at one point create a shell script for installing Firefox, and even though Nanotube did most of the footwork, I was heavily involved in the development of moving that script from being a simple script of automated commands to being UbuntuZilla. The script was and, I believe, has remained open source/GPL'ed. Nanotube and I both put a lot of work into that thing. We have not received any monetary reward for it, and if people wanted to fork UbuntuZilla and call it something else, they could very well do so.

I can't speak for Nanotube, but I don't feel as if I had no motivation to put all that work into testing and developing UbuntuZilla just because I wasn't getting paid and just because someone could fork it and benefit off our labor. I don't even know if my name is mentioned in the source code for UbuntuZilla, and frankly I don't care.

I believe in open source software, and if I ever did become a software programmer, I most likely would release my software GPL'ed and try to make money off advertisements, printed manuals, and support (a la WordPress and Firefox).

2. I have spent countless hours creating my Psychocats tutorials website. This is what I say about it in my FAQ:
Can I translate or link to the tutorials here?
I've had numerous requests asking if people can link to or translate the Psychocats Ubuntu website. The answer is yes. You can link to Psychocats without asking my permission. If you want to translate Psychocats Ubuntu, you may do that as well (please let me know, though—I'm just curious to know what's going on), and I encourage spreading the knowledge.

I haven't officially licensed the documentation, but the closest I've found to what I'd say embodies the spirit with which I'm giving Psychocats Ubuntu to the community is the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. If you would like to mirror Psychocats, you may do so, but please send me a link to the mirrored site, so I can know to refer people there also. And make sure you keep the mirror up to date! So people are more or less free to copy my tutorials, translate them, even mirror them. I don't care. And I put many, many, many hours into that website for years. I do feel that documentation is a fluid thing, though, and it benefits the community at large by being able to be freely distributed.

I would, however, like some credit for it, though. If you're going to mirror it, I'd like you to say you're a mirror and not pretend you're the original site. I would like people to at least say "Yes, it was aysiu who created the Psychocats tutorials" if nothing else, and I give credit where credit is due when others have helped me with parts of certain tutorials.

3. Non-documentation writing I feel fits into an entirely different category altogether, though. If I write a blog post, an article, a book, a short story, an essay, you do not have my permission (unless you explicitly ask for it, and I explicitly grant it) to republish it on another website or make money off of it or claim that you wrote it. Those are my thoughts expressed in my words. I feel very possessive of my writing, and I do not feel I'm restricting your freedom in any way by taking ownership of my personal writing.

Non-documentation writing is quite different from software and documentation writing, I feel.

If I make a piece of software that you grow dependent on, and then I say "Eh, I'm not going to make this any more, and I revoke your right to use it any more even though you want to pay for it," I am restricting your freedom. If I make documentation for software that's pretty good, and the software changes slightly so that parts of my documentation has to be updated and I refuse to update it or let others update it, I'm screwing the community that benefits from that software documentation.

If, however, I write a novel and say "You have to pay money for this book but then you own it," even if I die or don't want to republish my book, I can't go into all your homes and yank the book out of your hands. You bought that book and can read it as many times as you want. You can lend it to friends and have them read it.

In other words, apart from stolen credit, I see little added community benefit to open sourcing a blog post I write. That post contains my thoughts expressed in my way. What are you going to do--add in an extra comma? Another example? Great. That suddenly makes it your thoughts, right?

You have the freedom to read it as many times as you want and have others read it. You can express your own similar thoughts in your own way or even the same thoughts in your own way. Those will be your words. You can (under the "fair use" clause) even quote small snippets or large chunks (if you commentate appropriately).

You don't have to agree with me, but that's how I feel about it.

[fwojciec]

I think it's a confusion here. Ideas don't have owners, or more precisely everybody owns his own thoughts ;)
as for the concrete manifestation of an idea, that's another piece of cake. example: you and million people probably share the idea that war is wrong, imoral and useless. fine. but I doubt you could write "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "A Farewell to Arms" :). I hope I made myself clear

That's actually a good example to explain the current problem. In the past "All Quiet on the Western Front" could only exist as a physical object, printed book, that had to be manufactured using industrial methods and could be sold as a material item. An idea, in other words, had no life except in the form of a material object -- that is was the copyright laws were practically enforceable and made sense. Meanwhile the technological reality of sharing/copying ideas has changed dramatically, while the legal regime remains unchanged and stuck in the past. Ideas can exist now as immaterial "content" or "information" that can be perfectly reproduced at no (or negligible) cost and manipulated in completely new ways. This is, in a nutshell, the source of the current cultural dissonance with regard to this issue, the reason why the the current legal regime is quickly becoming outdated, and -- more importantly -- impracticable in the long run.

I don't know how this will be resolved, but it will be interesting to see. I expect that within the next 50 years many things will change as far as the legal concept of copyright is concerned.

[karellen]

That's actually a good example to explain the current problem. In the past "All Quiet on the Western Front" could only exist as a physical object, printed book, that had to be manufactured using industrial methods and could be sold as a material item. An idea, in other words, had no life except in the form of a material object -- that is was the copyright laws were practically enforceable and made sense. Meanwhile the technological reality of sharing/copying ideas has changed dramatically, while the legal regime remains unchanged and stuck in the past. Ideas can exist now as immaterial "content" that can be perfectly reproduced at no (or negligible) cost and manipulated in completely new ways. This is, in a nutshell, the source of the current cultural dissonance with regard to this issue, the reason why the the current legal regime is quickly becoming outdated, and -- more importantly -- impracticable in the long run.

I don't know how this will be resolved, but it will be interesting to see. I expect that within the next 50 years many things will change as far as the legal concept of copyright is concerned.

when you buy a book you pay not just for the paper and printing ;). that's why much of today's proprietary (and not only) software costs money, even if it costs almost nothing to duplicate (developing, that's another cup of tea)

[fwojciec]

when you buy a book you pay not just for the paper and printing ;). that's why much of today's proprietary (and not only) software costs money, even if it costs almost nothing to duplicate (developing, that's another cup of tea)

Yes, that's the ideology that's still the status quo today. Practically, it doesn't matter what it is that you pay for, as long as you pay.

The notion that ideas or intellectual creation can be owned (in the sense of copyright) is not universal -- historically speaking it is specific to modern industrial cultures.

[Sporkman]

The notion that ideas or intellectual creation can be owned (in the sense of copyright) is not universal -- historically speaking it is specific to modern industrial cultures.

That's because the economy of those cultures is much more information-based then those of less modern cultures.

[aysiu]

Let me ask a question.

Let's say there is a wonderful essay that you think everyone should read, and you think the author is brilliant. The essay was printed in an old magazine that was in a small print run (i.e., it is difficult to get a hold of). The author does not want a website and will not allow you to put up a website even if you give her full credit for the article and any ad revenue from the site. Is that a bummer? Should the author have the legal right to say "No, you can't publish it online" even if the essay contains no personally revealing details and the website publishing it gives full by-line credit and all revenue to the author?

I have mixed feelings about this highly contrived hypothetical situation of mine. On the one hand, it is the author's work. She should have some measure of say about how it gets used. On the other hand, if she offers no outlet for people to read it, and reading it would benefit many people, and she would get full credit and money for it... why should she have the right to deprive people of her great expressions of thought?

[Sporkman]

Let me ask a question.

Let's say there is a wonderful essay that you think everyone should read, and you think the author is brilliant. The essay was printed in an old magazine that was in a small print run (i.e., it is difficult to get a hold of). The author does not want a website and will not allow you to put up a website even if you give her full credit for the article and any ad revenue from the site. Is that a bummer? Should the author have the legal right to say "No, you can't publish it online" even if the essay contains no personally revealing details and the website publishing it gives full by-line credit and all revenue to the author?

I have mixed feelings about this highly contrived hypothetical situation of mine. On the one hand, it is the author's work. She should have some measure of say about how it gets used. On the other hand, if she offers no outlet for people to read it, and reading it would benefit many people, and she would get full credit and money for it... why should she have the right to deprive people of her great expressions of thought?

No problem, just wait until the copyright runs out.

[aysiu]

No problem, just wait until the copyright runs out.
What is it--75 years?

[fwojciec]

Let me ask a question.

Let's say there is a wonderful essay that you think everyone should read, and you think the author is brilliant. The essay was printed in an old magazine that was in a small print run (i.e., it is difficult to get a hold of). The author does not want a website and will not allow you to put up a website even if you give her full credit for the article and any ad revenue from the site. Is that a bummer? Should the author have the legal right to say "No, you can't publish it online" even if the essay contains no personally revealing details and the website publishing it gives full by-line credit and all revenue to the author?

I have mixed feelings about this highly contrived hypothetical situation of mine. On the one hand, it is the author's work. She should have some measure of say about how it gets used. On the other hand, if she offers no outlet for people to read it, and reading it would benefit many people, and she would get full credit and money for it... why should she have the right to deprive people of her great expressions of thought?

I think the crux of the problem is that, increasingly, the wishes of the author are becoming irrelevant for practical reasons. If someone feels strongly about making something available online they can, and they can do so anonymously so that the initial act of publishing can't be traced back to them. And once something is made available online the cat is out of the box... It can't be contained anymore (especially if you consider that laws only work nationally and digital information exchange is global).

This is why I think that technological aspect of reproduction of intellectual content is ultimately decisive (as it was when the current legal regime was put in place), and in the long run the laws will have to conform to changing technological reality.

[Sporkman]

What is it--75 years?

Something like that.

Look, the underlying issue is you want rights to something somebody else owns (in this case, the rights to a creative work), so you're rationalizing the taking of those rights. Just like if I'm starving, and I steal some food from a rich guy (who wouldn't even notice it's missing!), then I could certainly rationalize it so that I wouldn't feel bad, but it's still theft, right?

However, nobody has denied you the benefit of those ideas (after all, you were able to read the essay), but if the owner of the copyright is hard-headed enough to refuse to allow it to be disseminated under any circumstances, then that's the way it's gotta be.

But you're not completely out of luck, as society can indeed benefit from it's wide dissemination, you'll just have to wait until the copyright expires.

[Sporkman]

BTW, copyright is a pretty narrow right, so that if you were to summarize or re-word the essay, you could still have society benefit from the great ideas without violating the copyright, if I understand it correctly...?

[fwojciec]

Look, the underlying issue is you want rights to something somebody else owns (in this case, the rights to a creative work), so you're rationalizing the taking of those rights. Just like if I'm starving, and I steal some food from a rich guy (who wouldn't even notice it's missing!), then I could certainly rationalize it so that I wouldn't feel bad, but it's still theft, right?

However, nobody has denied you the benefit of those ideas (after all, you were able to read the essay), but if the owner of the copyright is hard-headed enough to refuse to allow it to be disseminated under any circumstances, then that's the way it's gotta be.

We all rationalize things one way or another. The problem is that, due to changes in available technology, "publishing" something has become almost as easy as reading something, which was not the case in the past.

In more general terms: legal/moral regimes are not fixed, and consciousness always lags behind technological advances. Look, people like phrostbyte are already advancing the idea that information sharing is a moral good!

Consider for example what happened after the technology of printing press was made available: books were burned and lists of prohibited ones were drawn up by the authorities, some countries (like France and England) tried for some time to make book trade illegal, which in turn resulted in emergence of illicit book trade on huge scale (see, for example, work of a historian Elizabeth Eisenstein for more info about this). The ultimate result of this technological advance was that "freedom of the press" became enshrined as inalienable right and so on... We're undergoing a similar cultural upheaval at the moment, though its effects will not be nearly as dramatic as the effects of printing press...

[Delever]

I don't know about you, but I have lots of ideas. Some I believe are quite original, some are sum of other things. And I find that:

a) I can only work on few ideas. And when you begin to work on them, that's not exactly easy - it's work.
b) If I want someone else to join me, I have to convince them that my ideas are worth the time. Convincing requires transforming my idea in understandable form, and that is also work.

Therefore I believe that ideas are less than finished job. If job is too big, smaller job could be done which may demonstrate that bigger job is possible, and it would be more than just idea.

Of course, I understand that there would be nothing without that original idea, but I also believe that there are many smart people in the world, and everyone, who can think, can have (and usually has) ideas. Yet, few percentage of them choose to develop those ideas further, because, well... it's not actually easy.

Having in mind amount of people in the World, and that one person usually has more then one idea, I feel that there "might" be some duplicated ideas floating around.

So I say that work is what should count, not an idea. If you had some idea, but someone realized it first, then my bad, you probably should have worked harder. :lolflag:

[Sporkman]

I don't know about you, but I have lots of ideas. Some I believe are quite original, some are sum of other things. And I find that:

a) I can only work on few ideas. And when you begin to work on them, that's not exactly easy - it's work.
b) If I want someone else to join me, I have to convince them that my ideas are worth the time. Convincing requires transforming my idea in understandable form, and that is also work.

Therefore I believe that ideas are less than finished job. If job is too big, smaller job could be done which may demonstrate that bigger job is possible, and it would be more than just idea.

Of course, I understand that there would be nothing without that original idea, but I also believe that there are many smart people in the world, and everyone, who can think, can have (and usually has) ideas. Yet, few percentage of them choose to develop those ideas further, because, well... it's not actually easy.

Having in mind amount of people in the World, and that one person usually has more then one idea, I feel that there "might" be some duplicated ideas floating around.

So I say that work is what should count, not an idea. If you had some idea, but someone realized it first, then my bad, you probably should have worked harder. :lolflag:

...but you also bear the risk of the idea not working out, and therefore not getting any compensation for your work. How do you get compensated for bearing the risk.

It's kind of like the difference between a being a business owner (where you invest time and/or money, with a good chance of losing it all, but also having the chance to hit it big - i.e. high risk), and being an employee (where you get a solid, steady, but small paycheck - low risk). The business owner assumes a lot of risk, but if successful, gets generously rewarded for the risk.

In this case, you are the business owner investing your time & effort in an idea & a resulting creative work. It would suck for somebody to snatch that work out from under you.

[Delever]

...but you also bear the risk of the idea not working out, and therefore not getting any compensation for your work. How do you get compensated for bearing the risk.

It's kind of like the difference between a being a business owner (where you invest time and/or money, with a good chance of losing it all, but also having the chance to hit it big - i.e. high risk), and being an employee (where you get a solid, steady, but small paycheck - low risk). The business owner assumes a lot of risk, but if successful, gets generously rewarded for the risk.

In this case, you are the business owner investing your time & effort in an idea & a resulting creative work. It would suck for somebody to snatch that work out from under you.

I agree, I think it is the main reason most people do not start working on their ideas. Risk of failure.

[kpatz]

Copyright in its original form isn't wrong, but what corporations have bastardized copyright into in the past few decades IS wrong.

Perpetual copyright durations, DMCA, pointless lawsuits, stifling innovation, DRM, bought legislation and other crap foisted on us by copyright holders has turned what was once a good idea created by our founding fathers and morphed it into an instrument of total greed and control. And there's no more incentive to come up with new creative stuff anymore, because once you (being the record companies, not the artist) have one hit song or movie you're set or life. Which is part of the reason why movies and music are total crap nowadays. They can still milk the cash cow from property created decades ago, and it doesn't matter if the new stuff flops or gets pirated (though they will still go after supposed pirates).

[karellen]

Yes, that's the ideology that's still the status quo today. Practically, it doesn't matter what it is that you pay for, as long as you pay.

The notion that ideas or intellectual creation can be owned (in the sense of copyright) is not universal -- historically speaking it is specific to modern industrial cultures.

well, to each his own I suppose. I have an ideology, you have your own and that's fine. copyright it's not about paying as much as it's about recognizing the authorship of a certain work ;). my personal view on this matter is that the author should have the freedom of choice to release his works under any license

[fwojciec]

well, to each his own I suppose. I have an ideology, you have your own and that's fine. copyright it's not about paying as much as it's about recognizing the authorship of a certain work ;). my personal view on this matter is that the author should have the freedom of choice to release his works under any license

Copyright and authorship are different things. Copyright is a right to make copies. Unauthorized copying does not question the authorship. You're confusing copying with plagiarizing.

[gletob]

copyright is not wrong it's the way we use it thats wrong

[bruce89]

Free Software is copyrighted actually.

[Dremora]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?

First of all, any teeth that GPL or other "free software" licenses have, is because they are enforceable copyright agreements.

The author never gives up the rights to the "free" software, and can change the license anytime they want, it's theoretically possible that if Linux did take off, Torvalds could make it proprietary software, close the source, and start charging licensing fees.

The only other option left would be to fork the last GPL'd code snapshot, and make a new project, and call it something else.

[bruce89]

The author never gives up the rights to the "free" software, and can change the license anytime they want, it's theoretically possible that if Linux did take off, Torvalds could make it proprietary software, close the source, and start charging licensing fees.


Torvalds doesn't own the copyright to all of it. This would make things very difficult to change.

[phrostbyte]

Funny you should cite a project whose source of money is a government. Where do governments get this "good money" that these researchers are "making"?

We could end piracy and support everyone who advances intellectual progress right now if we ended copyright and allowed the expansion of governmental grants.

[phrostbyte]

That's actually a good example to explain the current problem. In the past "All Quiet on the Western Front" could only exist as a physical object, printed book, that had to be manufactured using industrial methods and could be sold as a material item. An idea, in other words, had no life except in the form of a material object -- that is was the copyright laws were practically enforceable and made sense. Meanwhile the technological reality of sharing/copying ideas has changed dramatically, while the legal regime remains unchanged and stuck in the past. Ideas can exist now as immaterial "content" or "information" that can be perfectly reproduced at no (or negligible) cost and manipulated in completely new ways. This is, in a nutshell, the source of the current cultural dissonance with regard to this issue, the reason why the the current legal regime is quickly becoming outdated, and -- more importantly -- impracticable in the long run.

I don't know how this will be resolved, but it will be interesting to see. I expect that within the next 50 years many things will change as far as the legal concept of copyright is concerned.

That's exactly right. Copyright made sense when it was an industrial regulation, since the only people who could make copies realistically were those in the publishing industry. It doesn't make sense anymore, because, everyone can copy now - copyright is no longer an industrial regulation, but an affront to the personal dealings of the individual.

[fballem]

Let me ask a question.

Let's say there is a wonderful essay that you think everyone should read, and you think the author is brilliant. The essay was printed in an old magazine that was in a small print run (i.e., it is difficult to get a hold of). The author does not want a website and will not allow you to put up a website even if you give her full credit for the article and any ad revenue from the site. Is that a bummer? Should the author have the legal right to say "No, you can't publish it online" even if the essay contains no personally revealing details and the website publishing it gives full by-line credit and all revenue to the author?

I have mixed feelings about this highly contrived hypothetical situation of mine. On the one hand, it is the author's work. She should have some measure of say about how it gets used. On the other hand, if she offers no outlet for people to read it, and reading it would benefit many people, and she would get full credit and money for it... why should she have the right to deprive people of her great expressions of thought?

Actually, I like your contrived example. In your example, the author owns the copyright and if she does not wish to publish or distribute, regardless of her reasons, that is her right. No one has any right to take her intellectually property from her in any way.

Others have spoken of documentation and other similar items. The authors of those documents chose to make the documentation freely available and to allow others to modify it. By the way, the copyright on those documents specifies that any modifications must also be freely available and others allowed to modify it under the same terms and conditions. This is a matter of choice on the part of the authors and an obligation that is accepted by any contributing author.

In other cases, like Microsoft documentation, they have invested considerable time, money, and other resources to develop and produce the documentation. They have chosen to make it available under terms and conditions that do not allow the documentation to be modified and distributed. This is their choice - and if you don't like the choice, then don't use the documentation.

The ownership of ideas is the last refuge of the ordinary person and no one should be allowed to steal the product of your mind!

[phrostbyte]

Actually, I like your contrived example. In your example, the author owns the copyright and if she does not wish to publish or distribute, regardless of her reasons, that is her right. No one has any right to take her intellectually property from her in any way.

Others have spoken of documentation and other similar items. The authors of those documents chose to make the documentation freely available and to allow others to modify it. By the way, the copyright on those documents specifies that any modifications must also be freely available and others allowed to modify it under the same terms and conditions. This is a matter of choice on the part of the authors and an obligation that is accepted by any contributing author.

In other cases, like Microsoft documentation, they have invested considerable time, money, and other resources to develop and produce the documentation. They have chosen to make it available under terms and conditions that do not allow the documentation to be modified and distributed. This is their choice - and if you don't like the choice, then don't use the documentation.

The ownership of ideas is the last refuge of the ordinary person and no one should be allowed to steal the product of your mind!

Did you ask for permission from Shakespeare when you learned English, or from the many Arabic philosophers when you learned algebra?

Your entire mind and existence, your social ideas of morality, and everything you know, love and think are good at, are built upon generations of human work and experience, of people known and unknown to you.

The claim over ownership is ridiculous in any case. You don't own anything in your mind anymore then I own the English language.

[howlingmadhowie]

IMO copyright is extremely important. It gives the author of the intellectual property in question the right to do with it as he or she pleases. Imagine if there were no copyright: MS would be able to take Linux code and use it in their systems without realeasing the code, people would be able to distribute music without paying for it, there would be very little incentive for anyone to create any new intellectual property.

are you really saying that creativity depends upon how much you can hoard your creations and keep them for yourself? i guess the entire history of western science has just passed you by.

[howlingmadhowie]

First of all, any teeth that GPL or other "free software" licenses have, is because they are enforceable copyright agreements.

The author never gives up the rights to the "free" software, and can change the license anytime they want, it's theoretically possible that if Linux did take off, Torvalds could make it proprietary software, close the source, and start charging licensing fees.

The only other option left would be to fork the last GPL'd code snapshot, and make a new project, and call it something else.

copyleft licenses are a hack using copyright law to enforce freedom. i'm sure stallman, moglen et al. would be happier if it weren't necessary.

a propos linux taking off. don't 85% of the world's supercomputers and 90% of the world's web servers count in your book? there are more linux installations in the world than windows. isn't that taking off enough for you?

[karellen]

copyleft licenses are a hack using copyright law to enforce freedom. i'm sure stallman, moglen et al. would be happier if it weren't necessary.

a propos linux taking off. don't 85% of the world's supercomputers and 90% of the world's web servers count in your book? there are more linux installations in the world than windows. isn't that taking off enough for you?

even it's offtopic, Apache doesn't have 90$ market share
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

[howlingmadhowie]

That's because the economy of those cultures is much more information-based then those of less modern cultures.

no no no. it's because mass-copying (through the printing press) first became possible in the western world. until this happened, an artist was paid for the work in one lump sum. after mass copying was introduced the distributor started charging per copy and copyright became important. now we have a situation in which everybody can be the perfect distributor. this means that copyright and payment have to be rethought. i'd suggest returning to the lump-sum model. have a look at the webpage for project apricot
http://www.yofrankie.org/. here the producers stated they would first start to work on the film when enough money in the form of pledges had been collected. this sort of financial approach renders copyright law pointless. it may well become the financial approach of the future.

[Dremora]

copyleft licenses are a hack using copyright law to enforce freedom. i'm sure stallman, moglen et al. would be happier if it weren't necessary.

a propos linux taking off. don't 85% of the world's supercomputers and 90% of the world's web servers count in your book? there are more linux installations in the world than windows. isn't that taking off enough for you?

Well, those supercomputers may have thousands of CPU's, but there's probably less than 1,000 of them in the world.

Shall we also consider dual core or quad core desktops as two or four computers?

The place Linux is doing best is on the server, the last estimate I saw had it at around 12% there, with the bulk of that market going to FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows.

On the desktop, Linux is around 0.7%, up from 0.26% about 4 years ago, it's tripled it's share, but still well below 1%.

Windows still has about 92%, and OS X has about 7%, the other 0.3% can probably be explained as either rounding error, or FreeBSD. :lolflag:

If Windows is losing any ground on the desktop, it's to Apple, Linux just kind of stays where it is.

[aysiu]

copyleft licenses are a hack using copyright law to enforce freedom. i'm sure stallman, moglen et al. would be happier if it weren't necessary.

a propos linux taking off. don't 85% of the world's supercomputers and 90% of the world's web servers count in your book? there are more linux installations in the world than windows. isn't that taking off enough for you?
They actually seem quite happy with it:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

[howlingmadhowie]

netcraft counts domain names, not traffic. when it comes to traffic, gnu/linux based web servers do have 90% market share.

[howlingmadhowie]

The place Linux is doing best is on the server, the last estimate I saw had it at around 12% there, with the bulk of that market going to FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows.

please explain what you mean by 'server'. you sound like an idiot just throwing that word in there.

[karellen]

netcraft counts domain names, not traffic. when it comes to traffic, gnu/linux based web servers do have 90% market share.

maybe you have some actual data to backup your claim. until then, http://durak.org/sean/pubs/bss/

[fballem]

Did you ask for permission from Shakespeare when you learned English, or from the many Arabic philosophers when you learned algebra?

Your entire mind and existence, your social ideas of morality, and everything you know, love and think are good at, are built upon generations of human work and experience, of people known and unknown to you.

The claim over ownership is ridiculous in any case. You don't own anything in your mind anymore then I own the English language.

If Shakespeare and the Arab philosophers were still alive, they would be fully able to enforce their copyright. A copyright is a legal protection, normally limited in time, to ensure that the originator of the creative work can benefit from producing that work. English is my first language, but I would never presume to speak it as well as Shakespeare, nor would I presume to pass my poor attempts at prose as the equivalent of Shakespeare.

He chose to share his gift - his creations, and we are richer for those gifts. The Arab philosophers chose to share their gifts - the product of their minds. If they had not chosen to share their gifts, then we would never know about them.

Copyright protects the means through which the creative minds chose to share their gifts - whether it be a printed, electronic, or other distributions. If they choose to share their gifts, then they are entitled to share those gifts with whatever conditions they choose. Copyright does not allow for perpetual protection and others may extend the knowledge that they have received.

[bruce89]

He chose to share his gift - his creations, and we are richer for those gifts. The Arab philosophers chose to share their gifts - the product of their minds. If they had not chosen to share their gifts, then we would never know about them.

They didn't chose to share, copyright runs out 70 years after the author's death (depending on legal system).

[fballem]

They didn't chose to share, copyright runs out 70 years after the author's death (depending on legal system).

Yes, but if they, or someone else, didn't preserve their gifts then we would never know about them. I'm reasonably sure that Shakespeare's plays were performed during his lifetime, and I'm quite sure that the Arab philosophers instructed others in algebra during their lifetimes.

Copyright is not perpetual - it allows an opportunity for the creator to benefit from their creation while encouraging them to share their creation with the rest of us.

[fwojciec]

Yes, but if they, or someone else, didn't preserve their gifts then we would never know about them.

If you're talking about Arab philosophers -- no! Their work wouldn't have been preserved if people didn't copy it. Manuscript culture depended on copying to perpetuate availability of texts -- copying was expensive and very labor intensive, it was a great privilege to have one's work copied.

[fballem]

If you're talking about Arab philosophers -- no! Their work wouldn't have been preserved if people didn't copy it. Manuscript culture depended on copying to perpetuate availability of texts -- copying was expensive and very labor intensive, it was a great privilege to have one's work copied.

The point is that if the Arab philosophers didn't share their work in the first place, there would have been nothing to copy in the first place. I am suggesting that it is no different to-day - if someone (or more likely a whole group of someones) didn't develop and share the hosting software that we're currently using, then we would not be able to have this discussion in this way. The people who built this chose to share it with us.

They built this on the work of others who also chose to share their creative products with us according to their terms.

[bobbob1016]

Copyright in itself isn't bad, just how you use it. As in Scrabulus, or however you spell it. A few guys made a good scrabble online game, then Hasbro or whoever owns it, sued them to take it down, ot threatened copyright or something. That is wrong, buying it, or asking for a 50/50 or maybe 75/25, depending on how much they made off of Scrabulus is fine. Suing someone for taking a few clips from your show and putting them online, is wrong. Suing someone for putting the whole show online, and making it available to those who don't pay for cable, is ok in my eyes, although some argue that.

Basically so long as they aren't jerks, or stupid with what they should and shouldn't sue over, I don't see a problem.

[acrousey]

I'm fine with Copyright in technology and entertainment; however, I was just reading an How Stuff Works article about how some companies own the copyright of genes. I think that is going a little too far. I think stuff like genes should be more open source. They can copyright how they want to alter those genes, but everyone should be able to see them. It may be more beneficial to mankind that way.

[nanotube]

I can't speak for Nanotube, but I don't feel as if I had no motivation to put all that work into testing and developing UbuntuZilla just because I wasn't getting paid and just because someone could fork it and benefit off our labor.


Same here - i was just doing it for fun, and to help out other ubuntu users with getting the latest mozilla updates. and by the way, your name isn't mentioned in the source, but you're credited on the ubuntuzilla homepage. :)



I believe in open source software, and if I ever did become a software programmer, I most likely would release my software GPL'ed and try to make money off advertisements, printed manuals, and support (a la WordPress and Firefox).


While I like your idealism, I must say that unless your software happens to be particularly amenable to this kind of business model (e.g. firefox: partner with google for the search box -> millions of ad dollars), you won't be able to feed a family just off incidental advertising/service revenue. Most OSS coders work at a day job for a living, where they code non-open-source software. That's just the reality of it. Very few people can make a living just from coding FOSS.



2. I have spent countless hours creating my Psychocats tutorials website. This is what I say about it in my FAQ: So people are more or less free to copy my tutorials, translate them, even mirror them. I don't care. And I put many, many, many hours into that website for years. I do feel that documentation is a fluid thing, though, and it benefits the community at large by being able to be freely distributed.

I would, however, like some credit for it, though. If you're going to mirror it, I'd like you to say you're a mirror and not pretend you're the original site. I would like people to at least say "Yes, it was aysiu who created the Psychocats tutorials" if nothing else, and I give credit where credit is due when others have helped me with parts of certain tutorials.


to make things explicit, and easier for those who would like to copy or extend your work, i think you should specify a licence with those terms for your website. a creative commons licence you mentioned is a good choice.



3. Non-documentation writing I feel fits into an entirely different category altogether, though. If I write a blog post, an article, a book, a short story, an essay, you do not have my permission (unless you explicitly ask for it, and I explicitly grant it) to republish it on another website or make money off of it or claim that you wrote it. Those are my thoughts expressed in my words. I feel very possessive of my writing, and I do not feel I'm restricting your freedom in any way by taking ownership of my personal writing.


That said, there's nothing wrong with licensing blog posts and even books under a "free" license like the various incarnations of the creative commons. :)



In other words, apart from stolen credit, I see little added community benefit to open sourcing a blog post I write. That post contains my thoughts expressed in my way. What are you going to do--add in an extra comma? Another example? Great. That suddenly makes it your thoughts, right?


If you license under creative commons with attribution, you would both allow others to edit and expand on it, and get the proper credit. Is that not the best of both worlds? If your blog posts/articles/whatever are meaningful and insightful enough to make people want to expand and improve upon them, repost them etc (with attribution, of course), what is the reason to prevent them from doing so?

[nanotube]

Now, to answer the main question of this topic, you have to ask yourself, what is the actual purpose of copyright law. Remember that copyright is a fairly recent legal invention (see the very informative wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#History )

The current legal motivation for having copyright is to encourage the production of creative works, by giving the author the exclusive right to profit from the work for a certain period of time (which without copyright would be just freely copied by everyone, with the author not seeing a dime after the first sale). After that period, the work would enter the public domain, where anyone can build on and reuse the work for any reason without having to pay for it.

That said, the current legal term of copyright (at least in the US) of author's death + 70 years is, by all reasonable standards, supremely excessive of the minimum necessary to encourage the creation of creative works. With the pace of business and technology to day, a copyright of only 5-10 years after creation would be sufficient for the author to capture the bulk of the economic profit from creation. The excessive copyright term of today severely cripples the public domain, actually slowing down the creation of creative works. (Since most creative works are in some way derivative from other creative works, being grounded in the current cultural milieu, it is virtually impossible for a work to be "completely original", without relying in some way on previous works.

This, in brief, summarizes why I think that the current implementation of copyright /is/ wrong. It cripples the public domain for a ridiculously long period of time, making society the poorer for it, while enriching the entrenched media houses (who, unsurprisingly, were the lobbying drivers behind the numerous copyright term extension acts in the US and abroad that made the current copyright term what it is today).

Copyright (and patent) terms should be commensurate with the current pace of technological and cultural progress of society. Death + 70 years is just not right: realize that a work created today will remain under copyright for longer than most of us will remain alive (and that even assuming no further copyright length extensions will be pushed through congress by the media lobbies).

[aysiu]

I don't feel that people need to reproduce my post in order to improve or expand upon it. They can take the same ideas and go further with them in their own posts and then link to mine. I've done that to other people before, and I think that makes sense.
I read an intriguing post over here [include link] about [whatever topic]. I think so-and-so makes some good points, but I'd take it a step further [examples and more explanation] The main difference between software/documentation and non-documentation writing is whether or not wholeness of product is needed.

It doesn't make sense to have a mostly working piece of software and then to have an add-on or fix that cannot be applied. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to have mostly good documentation and then some documentation corrections that cannot be incorporated into the documentation.

But for a blog post or article, you can very well have an addition or rebuttal as a separate comment or post/article, and that actually works well. It's called a debate, a dialogue, an exchange of ideas. These are my ideas. Those are yours. These are the ideas of mine you agree with. These are the ideas of mine you disagree with. Even the GNU folks recognize this as different.

That is, after all, why we have posts in discussion threads like this. We don't have one post that everyone keeps editing to make the best post on copyright. This isn't a Wikipedia entry on copyright. This is a discussion. My ideas go in my post. Your ideas go in your post. I can expand on someone else's ideas by quoting her idea and then responding. I can rebut someone else's ideas by quoting her ideas and then rebutting (as you did to my earlier post).

[howlingmadhowie]

While I like your idealism, I must say that unless your software happens to be particularly amenable to this kind of business model (e.g. firefox: partner with google for the search box -> millions of ad dollars), you won't be able to feed a family just off incidental advertising/service revenue. Most OSS coders work at a day job for a living, where they code non-open-source software. That's just the reality of it. Very few people can make a living just from coding FOSS.


as stallman would say, if you have the choice between writing closed-source software and no software at all, you should choose no software at all. as it is, where i work we write in-house software for other companies. the software usually ends up being licensed under gpl2 or gpl3, because we use certain bits of gpled code. however, nobody intends to ever distribute the product, so you can't really call it open-source. about 80% of software written falls into this category.

[Sporkman]

as stallman would say, if you have the choice between writing closed-source software and no software at all, you should choose no software at all.

How exactly is that advice helpful? Other than the fact that it suggests software engineers be paupers (not unlike Stallman has chosen to live his life), it also seems to suggest that people are better off with no software than with non-free software - what is the basis of that conclusion? If somebody somewhere needs a piece of software to do something, and she can either choose between no such software or a non-open software, which choice would benefit her more?

I like open source because I get valuable stuff for free, and it also tends to be free of built-in ulterior motives (except for the propagation of more open sourcing, as in the GPL). Open source can also be useful in promoting wide adoption of your system, format, or standard (allowing you to profitably take advantage of that wide adoption). Otherwise, open source is just charity work...

[howlingmadhowie]

How exactly is that advice helpful? Other than the fact that it suggests software engineers be paupers (not unlike Stallman has chosen to live his life), it also seems to suggest that people are better off with no software than with non-free software - what is the basis of that conclusion?

1/ less than 20% of professional programmers make a living writing closed-source software.
2/ if people want to subjugate themselves that's there problem. i would have a moral problem with myself if i wrote closed-source software. if i was given the choice between earning a living writing closed-source software or working in macdonalds, i'd choose macdonalds. why? because i know writing closed-source software is an attempt to make other people dependent on me and to subjugate them.

[karellen]

I would have no problem writing a closed source program, as it would be (almost certainly) freeware. so I'd let the end-user decide. from what I've seen, the majority of user don't care if a program is free (as in beer and speech) or just free as in beer. if doesn't have to pay, he'll be content

[aysiu]

Isn't there a way to strike a compromise between fully open and fully closed so that you can profit directly from your software without "subjugating" your users?

There may already be a license like this, but what if you had a license that essentially said...?
The latest release will be closed source and not available for unlicensed redistribution or modification but all previous versions (even down to the .01 in numbering) will automatically be re-released as GPL That way, in order to get the absolute latest/greatest version of the application, people would still have to pay for it, but you couldn't charge an exhorbitant fee for it, as people would then say "Screw that" and use the previous GPL'ed version.

Is that a good compromise?

[Sporkman]

1/ less than 20% of professional programmers make a living writing closed-source software.


I call BS on that - do you have anything to back this up?

[swoll1980]

1/ less than 20% of professional programmers make a living writing closed-source software.
2/ if people want to subjugate themselves that's there problem. i would have a moral problem with myself if i wrote closed-source software. if i was given the choice between earning a living writing closed-source software or working in macdonalds, i'd choose macdonalds. why? because i know writing closed-source software is an attempt to make other people dependent on me and to subjugate them.

I'm dependent on GM to make the car I drive. I don't understand how that would make GM immoral. I depend on the water company to send water to my house, and the garbage man to take my trash. This is how society works every one finds there niche something they can contribute, something other people depend on, then barter for things that other people provide that they depend on. It's the way it was always been since the beginning of time.

[howlingmadhowie]

I call BS on that - do you have anything to back this up?

it's a quote by stallman. i'll ask him where he got it from.

[howlingmadhowie]

I'm dependent on GM to make the car I drive. I don't understand how that would make GM immoral. I depend on the water company to send water to my house, and the garbage man to take my trash. This is how society works every one finds there niche something they can contribute, something other people depend on, then barter for things that other people provide that they depend on. It's the way it was always been since the beginning of time.

but you could theoretically know how the car works. you could theoretically get a replacement part from somewhere else. you are not entrusting the car with your personal information. shall i continue?

[swoll1980]

but you could theoretically know how the car works. you could theoretically get a replacement part from somewhere else. you are not entrusting the car with your personal information. shall i continue?

My point is I have to depend on someone. I can't make the part myself so no matter what I'm dependent on someone else. Also my car is a Cadillac, and a lot of the parts for my car do have to be purchased from Cadillac anyways.

off topic: by the way your sig is hilarious. :)

[karellen]

it's a quote by stallman. i'll ask him where he got it from.

Stallman is not infallible, I hope you realize this

[phrostbyte]

Isn't there a way to strike a compromise between fully open and fully closed so that you can profit directly from your software without "subjugating" your users?

That's the ultimate question. I really really believe that we need a system that rewards people for developing open source software, and other open works. Copyright is NOT this system.

Don't get me wrong, there was a point in time where copyright made sense, but now it's hurting progress, and it's hurting personal freedom. We already have the technology to make the sum of human knowledge available to all humans. The only thing stopping this from happening is our archaic legal system.

[swoll1980]

pay per play. Open the source, allow modifications, but no redistribution. If someone wants to use your source in another program for profit they have to pay you for it. would that work?

[howlingmadhowie]

My point is I have to depend on someone. I can't make the part myself so no matter what I'm dependent on someone else. Also my car is a Cadillac, and a lot of the parts for my car do have to be purchased from Cadillac anyways.

off topic: by the way your sig is hilarious. :)

if i were cadillac, i'd have a bad feeling about forcing you to be dependent on me.

i like the sig too :-D

[howlingmadhowie]

Stallman is not infallible, I hope you realize this

he's pretty close to it. ;)

[howlingmadhowie]

pay per play. Open the source, allow modifications, but no redistribution. If someone wants to use your source in another program for profit they have to pay you for it. would that work?

no. it would not allow you to help your neighbor if they had a problem with the product.

[linuxguymarshall]

Copyright is ok. It all about the license. If I write a program then under US (And I belive most countries) I automatically have copyright for that piece of software.

[swoll1980]

no. it would not allow you to help your neighbor if they had a problem with the product.

Why not?

[linuxguymarshall]

Why not?

If you want to modify the source you would have to break the law to give your modified version to them.

[NovaAesa]

Copyright is ok. It all about the license. If I write a program then under US (And I belive most countries) I automatically have copyright for that piece of software.
Unless you relinquish the copyright. And even Stallman doesn't do that :P

[linuxguymarshall]

Unless you relinquish the copyright. And even Stallman doesn't do that :P

:)

[TekNullOG]

I think all of you would like this article available at this post:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=903878

[saulgoode]

I call BS on that - do you have anything to back this up?
An excerpt from http://www.interweft.com.au/papers/coopetition.html:

Many people believe that the majority of software development activity is involved in creating software for sale. This is a very long way from reality. Whilst the statistics are hard to pin down, almost every estimate places this 'software for sale' activity at under 20% of total software development - and some figures place it below 10% of all software development activity.

So, if 70% to 80% or more of all software development activity is aimed at creating software that isnot for sale, what software is being produced?

Unsurprisingly, it is in-house development - creating software to meet the specific needs of an organisation - that results in the majority of software development activity.

While that article is from 2001, I suspect that things have not changed dramatically -- and, if anything, the ratio of "in-house" development to "software for sale" has risen. Consider not only the IT service companies such as Electronic Data Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Systems) (which employs a much larger number of software developers than Microsoft) and Compuware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuware) (an example of many other "small" IT service companies which employ thousands of programmers), but companies such as Boeing, Honeywell, Lockheed, and Aerobus (almost all modern aircraft require millions of lines of code, especially so for military aircraft), as well as financial institutions and web services.

While such in-house, unpublished software may technically be considered "closed source", the point is that programming distributed code -- i.e., the job market affected by software copyright -- is but a small percentage of the overall programming job market.

[swoll1980]

If you want to modify the source you would have to break the law to give your modified version to them.

we were talking about an alternative to copyright. opensource it can be modified but not redistributed unless you pay the author

[Sporkman]

While such in-house, unpublished software may technically be considered "closed source", the point is that programming distributed code -- i.e., the job market affected by software copyright -- is but a small percentage of the overall programming job market.

Well of course, no argument here. But like you said, that's all closed source - what he was implying that only 20% of professional software developers work on closed source (implying the remaining 80% work on open source), which is false.

[saulgoode]

Well of course, no argument here. But like you said, that's all closed source - what he was implying that only 20% of professional software developers work on closed source (implying the remaining 80% work on open source), which is false.

I agree that howlinghowie may have misstated his case, however, he was attempting to address your contention that the Free Software model would force software engineers to be paupers.

I also may have misstated things in suggesting that all such in-house development is "closed-source"; much of the software contributed to the Free Software community is a result of such in-house development (the Linux kernel developers estimate this as the source for about 70% of their code). Also, all software produced by government-funded projects must by law be released in the public domain (excepting for situations of national security). Given this analysis, the number of in-house developers being paid to produce Free Software is far greater than for "software for sale".

[howlingmadhowie]

Unless you relinquish the copyright. And even Stallman doesn't do that :P

why do you say 'even'? stallman's entire philosophy can only succeed legally because of copyright. the licenses of the gnu-project have a strong copyleft provision. licenses which do not rely upon copyright as much are things like the mit license or many of the bsd licenses.

[howlingmadhowie]

Well of course, no argument here. But like you said, that's all closed source - what he was implying that only 20% of professional software developers work on closed source (implying the remaining 80% work on open source), which is false.

no i did not imply that. i said:

where i work we write in-house software for other companies. the software usually ends up being licensed under gpl2 or gpl3, because we use certain bits of gpled code. however, nobody intends to ever distribute the product, so you can't really call it open-source. about 80% of software written falls into this category.

how am i implying in this text that 80% of work is done on open-source?

[Sporkman]

no i did not imply that. i said:


how am i implying in this text that 80% of work is done on open-source?

I meant in your "less than 20% of professional programmers make a living writing closed-source software" statement - this is false.

[t0p]

I believe in the concept of copyleft - basically, a complete subversion of the copyright principle. The copyleft statement on my blog and any copyrightable material I create says:


(c) copyleft 2008. All rights reversed

(It's a pun. And I didn't invent it. I just use it. Copyleft in action :p)

There's a pretty neat copyleft symbol available - see attachment. Can anyone tell me how I could get open office writer or abiword to print it regular-sized into documents?

I'm not saying that content creators don't deserve anything except ripping off. You write a book, sure you should be able to make a buck off it. But I believe the author can get his payday from selling copies of his book. And if someone else wants to make copies and sell them, they can do it and the writer won't automatically deserve a cut of the other guy's profits. Kind of like how Free software works.

Please be aware that I'm not just trying to excuse myself for pirating other folk's stuff. I really do believe in copyleft and I'm happy for it to apply to anything I create.

[t0p]

Copyright is ok. It all about the license. If I write a program then under US (And I belive most countries) I automatically have copyright for that piece of software.

I don't follow your logic. You seem to be suggesting that copyright is good because copyright law exists. That makes no sense.

[billgoldberg]

I just think that sharing knowledge should be rewarded, that's all it boils down to. The system favors people who hoard knowledge by giving them monetary incentive to do so. And that is wrong.

Do you think the system should be changed to somehow reward open source developers? How can we accomplish this?

Copyright is needed.

The way copyright is implemented today is wrong (in most cases).

The copyright as implemented in the entertainment business is morally wrong and that kind of copyright belongs in the previous century.

The open source copyright models (gpl, bsd, cc, ...) are pretty good.

--

I think that for instance, musicians should perform to earn money, not just release one song and watch the money on their bank account grow.

People should be able to watch movies for free, they should pay if they want something extra ( HD video, dvd extras, ...).

A xvid rip should be available for free.

I don't know if people will follow me on the movie standpoint I have, but that's how I feel.

[t0p]

They didn't chose to share, copyright runs out 70 years after the author's death (depending on legal system).

What happens if the copyright belongs to a company or some other entity that does not die? Does the copyright last forever then? And does anyone here actually think that's just?

[billgoldberg]

What happens if the copyright belongs to a company or some other entity that does not die? Does the copyright last forever then? And does anyone here actually think that's just?

Around here copyrights are valid for 50 years. If the holder of the copyright still lives or not doesn't matter.

I believe this should be reduced to 5 years (10 at most).

[t0p]

Free Software is copyrighted actually.

Free software is copyrighted because:

1. All software is copyrighted. That's the law. Unfortunately.

2. The copyright law is the only way the creator of Free software can ensure his work will remain Free. Unfortunately.

[t0p]

Around here copyrights are valid for 50 years. If the holder of the copyright still lives or not doesn't matter.


By "around here" I take it you mean in Belgium?

Have copyright laws been harmonized throughout the EU?

[geoken]

I think the notion that the knowledge will exist, and only it's ability to be copy written will change is incorrect.

The fact is that many of the works which are currently being locked down under a death grip by the copyright holder(s) would simply not exist if the ability to copyright them didn't also exist.

For example, if someone produced a copyrighted work with the goal of profiting do you think the absence of copyright law would a)Make them produce the work anyway or b)Remove their main motivation for producing the work and by extension making sure the work will never exist. I'd argue that option b is more likely by several orders of magnitude.

[bp1509]

d

[t0p]

I think the notion that the knowledge will exist, and only it's ability to be copy written will change is incorrect.
.

So you support the concept of intellectual property. A concept that is morally and logically bankrupt.

It's okay for me to remember the contents of a book, and to use that knowledge in my work (as long as I don't reproduce it, of course).

But if I want to have a copy of the book to refer to rather than just my perfect memory of it, the author deserves to make a buck off me.

Can you really not see the fallacy of such an argument?

[Sporkman]

But if I want to have a copy of the book to refer to rather than just my perfect memory of it, the author deserves to make a buck off me.

Can you really not see the fallacy of such an argument?

Actually, if you used that author's work in some sort of profitable venture or activity, then you would be making a buck off him. ;)

[howlingmadhowie]

I think the notion that the knowledge will exist, and only it's ability to be copy written will change is incorrect.

The fact is that many of the works which are currently being locked down under a death grip by the copyright holder(s) would simply not exist if the ability to copyright them didn't also exist.

For example, if someone produced a copyrighted work with the goal of profiting do you think the absence of copyright law would a)Make them produce the work anyway or b)Remove their main motivation for producing the work and by extension making sure the work will never exist. I'd argue that option b is more likely by several orders of magnitude.

the fact is that the creators are the prostitutes de jour of the distributors. there are a lot of artists who cannot earn money as artists because they cannot find a distributor. the true tragedy of the current copyright situation is the harm it does the artists. untold treasures are being lost everyday because of this.

[clanky]

So you support the concept of intellectual property. A concept that is morally and logically bankrupt.

That is a very sweeping statement. How can it be morally bankrupt for an author who has spent time and effort or a publisher who has made a financial outlay to be protected from someone else simply coming along reproducing their work and selling it for their own profit?

The same goes for software development, if someone has taken the time, effort and financial outlay to produce high quality software then why is it immoral for them to expect to keep their source code to themselves rather than have someone else come along and either a) simply resell it under a different name, b)add rubbish code and destroy the reputation of their project or c) use the source code to develop a similar project in direct competition.

[geoken]

So you support the concept of intellectual property. A concept that is morally and logically bankrupt.

It's okay for me to remember the contents of a book, and to use that knowledge in my work (as long as I don't reproduce it, of course).

But if I want to have a copy of the book to refer to rather than just my perfect memory of it, the author deserves to make a buck off me.

Can you really not see the fallacy of such an argument?

I support the concept of intellectual property, within bounds. However, this issue is completely unrelated to my post. I was merely pointing out that when you remove the authors ability to profit, several works would never have been created.

[geoken]

the fact is that the creators are the prostitutes de jour of the distributors. there are a lot of artists who cannot earn money as artists because they cannot find a distributor. the true tragedy of the current copyright situation is the harm it does the artists. untold treasures are being lost everyday because of this.

That's a failing of the current distribution system, not of copyright itself.

[nanotube]

I don't feel that people need to reproduce my post in order to improve or expand upon it. <snip>.

Well, I agree with your thoughts that all flow from this premise, but i feel like the question should be put the other way.

I think the "default" state should be that there are no restrictions on any kind of reuse, and to move away from that, there has to be good reason to restrict people.

So it's not a question of whether other people need to reproduce your post, but whether you need for them /not/ to reproduce your post. So, do you feel that /you/ need to prevent people from reproducing your posts? And if so, why?

[howlingmadhowie]

That's a failing of the current distribution system, not of copyright itself.

it's a problem that could be solved in a lot of cases by revoking copyright laws. by that i mean that there are a lot of artists who have sold their creation to a distributor who in their turn does not distribute the work. this makes it legally impossible for the creation to be distributed.

[EdThaSlayer]

What about this. Copyright only lasts up to 3-5 years max and then it comes into the public domain. So those companies have 3-5 years to hoard as much cash as they want and then will be forced to develop better technology in 3-5 years. I do think life however shouldn't be patented, as I don't want to pay a royalty for owning 2 kidneys or having my heart pump out blood all the time.

[geoken]

it's a problem that could be solved in a lot of cases by revoking copyright laws. by that i mean that there are a lot of artists who have sold their creation to a distributor who in their turn does not distribute the work. this makes it legally impossible for the creation to be distributed.

When you sell stuff for mass distribution you take a risk. You feel you couldn't handle the distribution yourself so you take a risk selling it to someone who may are may not lock it up in a vault. If you're not comfortable with the risk, distribute it yourself.

If someone enters into a contract how can they complain when vents well within the bounds of the contract transpire.

[howlingmadhowie]

When you sell stuff for mass distribution you take a risk. You feel you couldn't handle the distribution yourself so you take a risk selling it to someone who may are may not lock it up in a vault. If you're not comfortable with the risk, distribute it yourself.

If someone enters into a contract how can they complain when vents well within the bounds of the contract transpire.

the trouble with this argumentation nowadays is that distribution is simple and free for everybody.

[Samhain13]

Food for thought:

If "creators" like painters, writers, and musicians expect some monetary compensation for the distribution of their work, then wouldn't it be fair for the people who are involved in distributing copies of creators' works to have monetary compensation too?

Let's say a musician recorded a piece of music and a guy named Pedro buys a recording from the record bar. Pedro then let's Mario hear the musician's song and eventually, Mario wants to have a copy of the recording. If Mario ends up buying the musician's record, Pedro, being the person who introduced Mario to the musician's work, should get a commission from Mario's purchase.

Dessert:

So, do I think copyright is wrong? If it is meant to benefit ONLY the creator then yes, I think it's wrong.

[howlingmadhowie]

Food for thought:

If "creators" like painters, writers, and musicians expect some monetary compensation for the distribution of their work, then wouldn't it be fair for the people who are involved in distributing copies of creators' works to have monetary compensation too?

Let's say a musician recorded a piece of music and a guy named Pedro buys a recording from the record bar. Pedro then let's Mario hear the musician's song and eventually, Mario wants to have a copy of the recording. If Mario ends up buying the musician's record, Pedro, being the person who introduced Mario to the musician's work, should get a commission from Mario's purchase.

Dessert:

So, do I think copyright is wrong? If it is meant to benefit ONLY the creator then yes, I think it's wrong.

the codified forms of the people you mention are called reviewers and marketing people. with modern distribution techniques the marketing people are superfluous. the reviewers are still useful, but the internet has very little need of paid reviewers---have a look at imdb.com.

in the old system copyright is of almost no benefit to the creator. normally the creator sells copyright of their creation to the distributor.
this also explains why distributors are fighting tooth and nail for the old system.

[Samhain13]

I was talking about "word of mouth" advertising, not the conventional distribution/marketing channels. Word of mouth advertising, in many cases, isn't necessarily "free". One example of compensated word of mouth advertising can be seen in real estate, where a regular person gets a small percentage for a referral of an agent to a buyer, if such a referral leads to a sale.

If we treat copyrightable works as products that can be sold (a house, a car, Avon(?)), then we have to consider compensating the people involved in making the sales.

What's happening now is some creators are arguing that they must be able to profit from their work; and because of copyright, they can DEMAND payment from any person who has a copy of their work, and treating non-payment as somewhat disrespectful, immoral, and even criminal. It would all be fair if there was some legal mechanism (within the same copyright laws) that enables regular people to demand profit from having a direct hand in generating those creators' profits-- and to treat creators who do not comply as disrespectful, immoral, and even criminal.