On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:34:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

> On ideology offtopic - in my opinion BSD is akin to anarchism and GPL is like communism, in modern internet flavor :)

Not so sure about the anarchism bit. In an anarchy nobody can assume power (i.e. make it proprietary).

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:42:22 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:34:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> On ideology offtopic - in my opinion BSD is akin to anarchism and GPL is like communism, in modern internet flavor :)
>
> Not so sure about the anarchism bit. In an anarchy nobody can assume power (i.e. make it proprietary).

This statement is only true if you consider information a meta-property and thus very concept of copyright legitimate. I personally don't and thus BSD ideology suits me better :P In such terminology base your statement makes no sense as restricting a copy has nothing to do with original.

Pretty much any GPL vs BSD holywar out there makes circles arounds these very basics. I like BSD ideologically but GPL is simply better for practical reasons if you want your project to evolve as community-based. And, of course, there are always exceptions :P

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:17:28 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:42:22 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:34:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>>> On ideology offtopic - in my opinion BSD is akin to anarchism and GPL is like communism, in modern internet flavor :)
>>
>> Not so sure about the anarchism bit. In an anarchy nobody can assume power (i.e. make it proprietary).
>
> This statement is only true if you consider information a meta-property and thus very concept of copyright legitimate.

Legitimacy of copyright is a tough one. Software development and the internet have added a new angle to it. However, where do you draw the line? The fact that something can be easily copied / distributed (internet) does not mean that the concept of copyright is obsolete (cf. the Pirate Party). Why should a composer, band or author not have the copyright on his/her own work and not see any money for it?

In software it's a bit different. Where does "innovation" or "own work" start? Companies have sued each other for trivial things that anybody would come up with intuitively. However, I don't think that you can easily compare the world of software development with other areas.

> I personally don't and thus BSD ideology suits me better :P In such terminology base your statement makes no sense as restricting a copy has nothing to do with original.
>
> Pretty much any GPL vs BSD holywar out there makes circles arounds these very basics. I like BSD ideologically but GPL is simply better for practical reasons if you want your project to evolve as community-based. And, of course, there are always exceptions :P

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 14:06:08 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Legitimacy of copyright is a tough one. Software development and the internet have added a new angle to it. However, where do you draw the line? The fact that something can be easily copied / distributed (internet) does not mean that the concept of copyright is obsolete (cf. the Pirate Party).

For me it is convincing enough, despite working in industry which has traditionally relied on that (good to see it is moving from there). Concept of authorship is important, concept of copyright is fallacy.

> Why should a composer, band or author not have the copyright on his/her own work and not see any money for it?

Why can't they do it without relying on copyright? ;) Software industry has moved quite a lot in direction of SaaS models, for example, when encountered similar problem. Kickstarter has shown that you can find different ways of funding creativity. It may destroy few industries in process but I have zero respect to habits or tradition.

> In software it's a bit different. Where does "innovation" or "own work" start? Companies have sued each other for trivial things that anybody would come up with intuitively. However, I don't think that you can easily compare the world of software development with other areas.

You can't, of course, but other areas are not as naturaly fast-evolving as IT stuff is so it is always interesting to model former with the latter in attempt to guess any possible future impact.

See how GPL vs BSD comes to dispute over fundamental beliefs? :P

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 15:11:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 14:06:08 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> Legitimacy of copyright is a tough one. Software development and the internet have added a new angle to it. However, where do you draw the line? The fact that something can be easily copied / distributed (internet) does not mean that the concept of copyright is obsolete (cf. the Pirate Party).
>
> For me it is convincing enough, despite working in industry which has traditionally relied on that (good to see it is moving from there). Concept of authorship is important, concept of copyright is fallacy.
>

How so? Imagine you write a song and someone else has a hit with it. Why shouldn't you get a piece of the cake? Also, imagine someone uses something you have the copyright on for things you don't agree with (Nazis, the KKK whoever), isn't good that you can stop them from using your work to promote their cause?

>> Why should a composer, band or author not have the copyright on his/her own work and not see any money for it?
>
> Why can't they do it without relying on copyright? ;)

How would that work?

> Software industry has moved quite a lot in direction of SaaS models, for example, when encountered similar problem. Kickstarter has shown that you can find different ways of funding creativity. It may destroy few industries in process but I have zero respect to habits or tradition.

Neither do I.

>> In software it's a bit different. Where does "innovation" or "own work" start? Companies have sued each other for trivial things that anybody would come up with intuitively. However, I don't think that you can easily compare the world of software development with other areas.
>
> You can't, of course, but other areas are not as naturaly fast-evolving as IT stuff is so it is always interesting to model former with the latter in attempt to guess any possible future impact.

Beware of borrowing from IT! All that bullsh*t companies, PR agents and the like come up with (from "copy and paste" to "gamification").

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification)

> See how GPL vs BSD comes to dispute over fundamental beliefs? :P

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 18:28:02 UTC, Chris wrote:
> How so? Imagine you write a song and someone else has a hit with it. Why shouldn't you get a piece of the cake?

Why should I? Once it is published, it is out wild. If I was going to earn on it, I'd gather as much as possible _before_ it is published (== kickstarter). Of course, if someone else pretends he is actually author of a song, this is completely different story.

> Also, imagine someone uses something you have the copyright on for things you don't agree with (Nazis, the KKK whoever), isn't good that you can stop them from using your work to promote their cause?

No. Never. Full stop. Restricting something simply because you don't like it / can't agree with it is reliable way to get restricted yourself. It is essentially same thing as freedom of speech. There are better ways to oppose Nazis.

>>> Why should a composer, band or author not have the copyright on his/her own work and not see any money for it?
>>
>> Why can't they do it without relying on copyright? ;)
>
> How would that work?

Have already seen several successful Kickstarter projects that had wording akin to "We need X $ to record this album". I sincerely think that such model is most honest approach to producing elements of culture. And if sound labels finally get the idea of subscription-based music distribution, it makes perfect sense to simply hire some proven artists "full-time" same way one may do with sport stars. There are variety of options once you abandon idea of copyright and try to adjust consuming model istead of trying to adjust laws. Music won't be the way to become rich and famous then but I think it is a good thing.

Chris @ 2014-01-28 15:06:
>  However, I don't think that you can easily compare the world of software development with other areas. 
Possibly suing is not that common, but i find music and software development extremely similar in terms of creation. Even if you're not that much into music, you can glimpse over sites like http://www.whosampled.com/ that illustrate it.
Compared to older music - only methods changed (no sampling), the fact is still the same.

"Music copyrights" works mostly for corporations that (i think) do not help with creativity. Instead of making music, people have to "find the right people" and "get their attention". Then, after company invested in some artist, they want to have a revenue, so they insist "make a tune" which is *not* helping with making art.

Result of "internet revolution" is, that most of small or independent musicians are uploading their own songs to youtube for free, because most of their profit is throught live acts (again - promotes creativity). Many of them use services like Spotify, that pay them for every "play". Thanks to it, listeners are free to listen and explore what they like, and artists money-curve is less asymptotic.

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:42:22 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:34:42 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> On ideology offtopic - in my opinion BSD is akin to anarchism and GPL is like communism, in modern internet flavor :)
>
> Not so sure about the anarchism bit. In an anarchy nobody can assume power (i.e. make it proprietary).

Intellectual property enforcement is based on state power. Copyleft is a hack of copyright law, which, in essence rely on state power.

If you can't have an intellectual property enforcement, that obviously don't prevent someone to do proprietary software. One do not have to shared his/her source or his/her patches to an open source project.

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 19:27:32 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 18:28:02 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> How so? Imagine you write a song and someone else has a hit with it. Why shouldn't you get a piece of the cake?
>
> Why should I? Once it is published, it is out wild. If I was going to earn on it, I'd gather as much as possible _before_ it is published (== kickstarter). Of course, if someone else pretends he is actually author of a song, this is completely different story.
>
>> Also, imagine someone uses something you have the copyright on for things you don't agree with (Nazis, the KKK whoever), isn't good that you can stop them from using your work to promote their cause?
>
> No. Never. Full stop. Restricting something simply because you don't like it / can't agree with it is reliable way to get restricted yourself. It is essentially same thing as freedom of speech. There are better ways to oppose Nazis.

Ok. Imagine you write a song called "Destroy!" (maybe having traditions and rules in mind). Two things happen:

1. A band records it (or puts it on youtube) and has a hit. They respect your authorship, say "Thanks, buddy!", but they get all the money.

2. A bunch of racists use the song (because of the titles) for one of their hate rallies, pointing at minorities and singing "Destroy! Destroy!".

Case 1: As long as there are so many c*nts out there (and there are many rats among musicians), you want to have some kind of way of not being ripped off.

Case 2: You cannot always prevent these things, but if someone takes your art (= what your mind & soul produced) and uses it in a completely perverted way, you won't feel good about it.

In a perfect world, I agree, there wouldn't be all that copyright bullshit. After all, these laws only protect the interests of the rich and powerful, and it kills (as has been said here) creativity in music. I agree. I once wanted to send some of my songs to people and was warned against it by people who had been in the business "once it's out there, you can't claim the copyright/authorship anymore". And knowing how people are, I desisted from sending them to a broader audience. I still don't know what to do in this respect. I'd like to share the music, but I know how people are.

>>>> Why should a composer, band or author not have the copyright on his/her own work and not see any money for it?
>>>
>>> Why can't they do it without relying on copyright? ;)
>>
>> How would that work?
>
> Have already seen several successful Kickstarter projects that had wording akin to "We need X $ to record this album". I sincerely think that such model is most honest approach to producing elements of culture. And if sound labels finally get the idea of subscription-based music distribution, it makes perfect sense to simply hire some proven artists "full-time" same way one may do with sport stars. There are variety of options once you abandon idea of copyright and try to adjust consuming model istead of trying to adjust laws. Music won't be the way to become rich and famous then but I think it is a good thing.

On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 10:18:49 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Ok. Imagine you write a song called "Destroy!" (maybe having traditions and rules in mind). Two things happen:
>
> 1. A band records it (or puts it on youtube) and has a hit. They respect your authorship, say "Thanks, buddy!", but they get all the money.

Expected and appropriate. Don't put stuff public that is not expected to be in public domain. Once anyone else knows it, it is out of your control. Royalties should just vanish from existence.

And even better - don't write songs if you are for money.

> 2. A bunch of racists use the song (because of the titles) for one of their hate rallies, pointing at minorities and singing "Destroy! Destroy!".

And you will accept it. Or try to punish them for what they actually do, not for songs they use.

Accepting that you can't have control over other people is first step to become free yourself. Most police states start from restrictions appealing to public morale and greater good.

> "once it's out there, you can't claim the copyright/authorship anymore".

Only copyright. Authorship is relatively easy to claim - you only need to be first documented person publishing it. About song itself - just releasing it with no further concerns can help you build the reputation. And that is most valuable thing any artist can get.