August 16, 2008
downs wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> Mike Parker wrote:
>>> downs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
>>>>
>>>> I wish you'd remember that more.
>>> Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
>> Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
>> when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
>> you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
>> not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
>> Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
>> infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
>> that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
>> already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
>> PR goals.
> 
> "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
> 
> "Pirating": 3 syllables.
> 
> "Stealing": 2 syllables.
> 
> Sad but true.

remember the old rule - each line of code is read 100 times more than it's written? IMHO this should also apply to NG posts.
August 16, 2008
Yigal Chripun Wrote:

> Mike Parker wrote:
> > downs wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
> >>
> >> I wish you'd remember that more.
> > 
> > Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
> 
> Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?

ain't it funny. ever since i stopped fuckshitting everyone and their dog started. funniest is jarrett. first he emails like an unsexed victorian damsel in distress "learn to type like a normal person or i'll have a syncope right here. oh! oh! my minerals quick!" next day he's cursing like a sailor in baltimore. not that there are any. guys the dirty talk is pathetic. you don't have the frame for it. if i can do it in style don't let that fool ya. ok?
August 16, 2008
downs Wrote:

> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> > Mike Parker wrote:
> >> downs wrote:
> >>
> >>> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
> >>>
> >>> I wish you'd remember that more.
> >> Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
> > 
> > Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
> > when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
> > you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
> > not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
> > Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
> > infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
> > that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
> > already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
> > PR goals.
> 
> "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
> 
> "Pirating": 3 syllables.
> 
> "Stealing": 2 syllables.
> 
> Sad but true.

"what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.

depressing.
August 16, 2008
superdan wrote:
> downs Wrote:
> 
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> Mike Parker wrote:
>>>> downs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish you'd remember that more.
>>>> Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
>>> Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
>>> when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
>>> you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
>>> not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
>>> Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
>>> infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
>>> that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
>>> already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
>>> PR goals.
>> "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
>>
>> "Pirating": 3 syllables.
>>
>> "Stealing": 2 syllables.
>>
>> Sad but true.
> 
> "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.
> 
> depressing.

"Pirating" is shorter :)

And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.
August 16, 2008
downs Wrote:

> superdan wrote:
> > downs Wrote:
> > 
> >> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> >>> Mike Parker wrote:
> >>>> downs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wish you'd remember that more.
> >>>> Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
> >>> Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
> >>> when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
> >>> you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
> >>> not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
> >>> Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
> >>> infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
> >>> that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
> >>> already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
> >>> PR goals.
> >> "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
> >>
> >> "Pirating": 3 syllables.
> >>
> >> "Stealing": 2 syllables.
> >>
> >> Sad but true.
> > 
> > "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.
> > 
> > depressing.
> 
> "Pirating" is shorter :)

ok eh.

> And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

...................

sorry my level of humor rose so fast above yours i got vertigo there for a bit.

hint: it's 9 syllables if you read it the right way.
August 16, 2008
superdan wrote:
> downs Wrote:
> 
>> superdan wrote:
>>> downs Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>> Mike Parker wrote:
>>>>>> downs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish you'd remember that more.
>>>>>> Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
>>>>> Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
>>>>> when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
>>>>> you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
>>>>> not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
>>>>> Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
>>>>> infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
>>>>> that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
>>>>> already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
>>>>> PR goals.
>>>> "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
>>>>
>>>> "Pirating": 3 syllables.
>>>>
>>>> "Stealing": 2 syllables.
>>>>
>>>> Sad but true.
>>> "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.
>>>
>>> depressing.
>> "Pirating" is shorter :)
> 
> ok eh.
> 
>> And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.
> 
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> ...................
> 
> sorry my level of humor rose so fast above yours i got vertigo there for a bit.
> 

Hehe.

> hint: it's 9 syllables if you read it the right way.

This isn't really my day.
August 16, 2008
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:12:23 +0200, downs wrote:

> Mike Parker wrote:
>> bobef wrote:
>>> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>>>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
>>>>> letter
>>>>> of the
>>>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
>>>>>> every day are
>>>>>> lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
>>>>>> copyrighted
>>>>>> material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and
>>>>>> damaging.
>>>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also
>>>>> in the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for
>>>>> the language).
>>>>>
>>>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong. you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything since there's nothing to steal.
>>>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>>>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent
>>>> the concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
>>>> "steal,"
>>>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
>>>> right
>>>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you
>>>> do or should have that right.
>>>>
>>> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have
>> no respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software.
>> He'll be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't
>> deserve
>>  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods
>>  enjoy.
> 
> Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".
> 
>> He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you dash his dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out and find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!
> 
> There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional arguments. Guess which yours is.
> 
> 
>> Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something someone else has created without the creator's permission.
> 
> This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).
> 
> The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a certain period of time. It does not exist "by default".
> 
>> I'm sure we
>> can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
>> you for it, then I am well within my right to do so.
> 
> Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE SAME. THING.
> 
>> How is it that when my
>> creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?
> 
> Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of times.
> 
>> I've heard
>> this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to
>> me. True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing
>> a physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the
>> time and effort I put into it.
> 
> Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your physical goods?
> 
>> It takes a heck of a lot longer to
>> develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
>> chair.
> 
> Maybe for cheap chairs.
> 
>> So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide if my product should be freely available?
>> 
> See above.
> 
>> And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap. Software is not information. It's a product.
> 
> Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).

Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). (Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So really where did we go with this?)

Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way (scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because I still have the original? And now back to chairs.

Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled (*cough* DRM *cough*).

This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or required labor to copy.

I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end- user.

The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).

The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to use after the sale.

The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use copies are fine.

On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to prove that it really was all my work).

To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the creator, how copy for distribution is handled.
August 17, 2008
My major issue with what you wrote is this:
60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's
go even before that to the time when black people in America were
considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a
white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his
property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today,
you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the
law that black people where not really people and didn't have any
rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom
of information.
besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just
like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question
of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it
make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make
a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely
copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to
the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.

There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
distribution. The way it actually works is this:
a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc..
b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it.
c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me:
I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it
is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your
idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is
what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)

The above basic scheme was augmented by copyright/patent laws in the
following matter:
The state gives the creator a *limited* time-span of exclusivity from
the moment he told the world his idea or published his book/song/etc.
This is a trade-off designed to make it worthwhile for people to come up
with new ideas, invest their time in art, etc. I.e the public gives some
of its rights in order to gain more diversity of ideas and such.

Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website. Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.

Another example would be music artists which distribute their music freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the more they earn.

When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site. I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.

One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next thing he'll burn will be people.

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). (Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So really where did we go with this?)
> 
> Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way (scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because I still have the original? And now back to chairs.
> 
> Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled (*cough* DRM *cough*).
> 
> This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or required labor to copy.
> 
> I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end- user.
> 
> The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).
> 
> The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to use after the sale.
> 
> The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use copies are fine.
> 
> On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to prove that it really was all my work).
> 
> To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the creator, how copy for distribution is handled.
August 17, 2008
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

> My major issue with what you wrote is this: 60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's go even before that to the time when black people in America were considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today, you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the law that black people where not really people and didn't have any rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom of information. besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.
> 

Sorry your beef with the past does not work. Back in those days blacks were property, sad but true. Yes there were people that didn't like it, and it was a horrible treatment of human life, yet there is a reason we do not charge people with a crime that was not a crime at the time. You must work to make change, and breaking law might be the only way to do it, but it is your choice and breaking the law (hence illegal).

My infinitely copyable chair example actually made reference to productions lines, which I do believe exist outside of Star Treck. I suppose I will have to state that yes, truly infinite copyable anything can not exist, you have to store you program somewhere. But for all intents and purposes products can be produced to a state that is equivalent to infinitely copyable, you only need enough to satisfy everyone that wants it.

Information, this is the god damn English language we are talking about, you need to go and define this thing that you wish to be throwing around as something we have a right to. And frankly, what we refer to for this right is completely different and so I am not going to define it myself because that is not the argument.

> There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)

Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn, and low and behold he has control over distribution of it. Why, he labored over it and got a product. If someone else is successful in doing the same, great but in either case this creator has the right given by the fact that to produce corn in such quantities takes work and not everyone is going to stumble across the free supplies they need. Which is where the idea of inherent rights to distribution come from. If a laborer of physical goods gets this right without legal statement, a laborer of something that does not have this innate property should have it extended to him.

> 
> The above basic scheme was augmented by copyright/patent laws in the
> following matter:
> The state gives the creator a *limited* time-span of exclusivity from
> the moment he told the world his idea or published his book/song/etc.
> This is a trade-off designed to make it worthwhile for people to come up
> with new ideas, invest their time in art, etc. I.e the public gives some
> of its rights in order to gain more diversity of ideas and such.

Do you see a problem with such an idea? If I work at something that others enjoy why not have exclusive rights to it? Yes people are willing to create things for free, but that was their choice and they were the ones that put work into it.

> 
> Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website. Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.

First off, not RedHats choice anyway, they built on something that was already being given out for free. Secondly, how is it logical to give something out for free and then be paid for it? Isn't that like selling it (this is assuming you get paid for every one given out for free).

The main fallacy with your argument is saying that people can make money even if the are not charging for it. So what? I'm not arguing here what the best business model is to make the most money. There is lots of great, free software out there where people make money. What does that have to do with anything? If you want to convince people to make their stuff free, then great, but it has nothing to do with are argument.

> 
> Another example would be music artists which distribute their music freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the more they earn.

See above. I don't care what gets people the most money. I care about these person's right to decide how the do their product distribution.

> 
> When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site. I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.

See above. Great your one of the nice peoples that pays for things they get for free.

> 
> One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next thing he'll burn will be people.

See third paragraph. Define information, then correlate to how the loss of different types of information (yes there is more than one) lead to loss of other rights. I would agree with you on some, but not all. And maybe this can be the topic of the next postings.

> 
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). (Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So really where did we go with this?)
>> 
>> Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way (scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because I still have the original? And now back to chairs.
>> 
>> Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled (*cough* DRM *cough*).
>> 
>> This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or required labor to copy.
>> 
>> I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end- user.
>> 
>> The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).
>> 
>> The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to use after the sale.
>> 
>> The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use copies are fine.
>> 
>> On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to prove that it really was all my work).
>> 
>> To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the creator, how copy for distribution is handled.

August 17, 2008
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:g87t4r$1uq6$1@digitalmars.com...
> My major issue with what you wrote is this:
> 60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's
> go even before that to the time when black people in America were
> considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a
> white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his
> property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today,
> you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the
> law that black people where not really people and didn't have any
> rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom
> of information.

One of the consequences of the abolition of slavery was that those people now had the right to paid for their work, whereas previously they didnt.

So your crass analogy actualy works against you.


> besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.

I think he was making the point that when you buy a physical product you are not just paying for materials, but also for the labour, whether production line labour or the labour in development and design.

If you take the actual cost of materials out of the analogy with a chair you are left with a similar situation we have with software, where the cost of the product is almost all labour costs.


> There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control distribution. The way it actually works is this:

There are no inherent rights to anything in this world. Human rights, or copyrights, or civil rights, all of these are human creations.

So when we talk about such rights, it only makes sense to do so in that context. What rights has our society / social group decided we have.


> a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc..
> b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it.
> c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me:
> I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it
> is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your
> idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is
> what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)

You dont copyright ideas, you patent ideas. Copyright is for protecting works, artistic or otherwise, not for protecting ideas.

If you read a book for example you are free to tell people about the ideas in the book. Nobody is trying to stop you doing that.

But you are not usualy free to make a copy of the book and give that to them.


> Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website. Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.

Straw man. He never said you cant do whatever business model you want, he simply said the "software is a product" business model is a valid one.

That some companies do well with "software as a service" doesnt mean we should force all companies to be like that. Or that we should rigidly confine our idea of what software is in such a way.


> Another example would be music artists which distribute their music freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the more they earn.

From what I've read the majority of bands / artists who are actualy doing well with such models are ones who have already climbed up music industry ladder and were already world famous before going independant..


> When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site. I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.

If that's his choice of business model good for him. If he makes a living that way great.

But if it isnt he shouldnt be forced to adopt that business model by people like you.

Dont get me wrong, i like such ways of doing things, i like free software, and such try before buy busniess models. But i dont think I have a right to it. I dont have the right to force you to do business in a way that suits me.


> One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next thing he'll burn will be people.

You're very confused. Freedom of information is about cencorship, government control of information, and about such information being *freely accessible*.

It's not about information being free as in free beer.

And again i find your analogy with book burning somewhat crass. The situation we are talking about here is nothing like that. No-one is trying to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact trying to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where ideas and artist works flourish.






1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home