Are freedom of speech and enforcement of copyright law mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive
can both co exist freely without conflict?
To put it more simply
which of these technological advancement is a hindrance to authors rights
electricity; windows; or P to P softwares
how to tackle when it comes to abstract property
If one rejects Consequentialism or instrumentalism will it make sense in copyright protection
If I can listen to music do I violate rights as I violate when I store music
maybe in my brain
What exactly is the difference between sharing and piracy
Freedom of speech and copyright have NOTHING to do with one another.
Freedom of speech is a purely political idea. Freedom of speech means that you can (theoretically) voice any idea or opinion, even an unpopular one, in your country, without going to jail for it.
Copyright is something else altogether. Copyright means that you own a unique idea, or the the way your express a common idea. The purpose of copyright is to keep stupid, boring people from getting money they don't deserve by copying and taking credit for the work of smart, creative people.
For example, I am talking about copyright law, right this minute. Copyright law is not my idea, but it's a basic legal concept, so I can talk about it until I'm blue in the face. Because copyright is a general idea, people can QUOTE my words about copyright law, but even if they totally agree with me, they cannot legally copy and republish MY PERSONAL WORDS AND IDEAS and claim them as their own. In fact, if somebody copies my words, and just changes them a little bit to try to get around copyright law, I can still sue their ass.
And don't be so silly; having a copyrighted work permanently lodged in your brain is not a copyright violation. Not yet, anyway... sometimes I wish I could stick a USB cable into my head and delete files. I have had a really annoying song about wanting a hippopotamus for Christmas stuck in my head for nearly two weeks now. 
| furtasacra wrote: |
| Freedom of speech and copyright have NOTHING to do with one another... I can still sue their ass |
This is an excellent response, furtasacra. Well said.
Agreeing completely with furtasacra's point about free speech being political concept and copyright an economic one: for myself, I think the primary distinction is profit. Free speech allows you to say/ write/otherwise communicate anything you want (with a few exceptions). Copyright simply prevents you from profiting by saying/writing material that is not your own. They don't effect each other in any meaningful way, as I understand it you can quote copyrighted material all day long, you can ruminate upon it at your leisure, and store it in anyway you see fit. What you cannot do is claim it as your own, redistribute it, or make unauthorized copies for redistribution.
This has been a topic of interest of late with the RIAA being called out for having claimed that copying music from a purchased CD, to your hard-drive may be illegal (Marc Fisher, Washington Post: December 30, 2007). As it turns out the RIAA only makes that claim when there is an expectation that they may have been copied to a "shared" folder. You have the right to store copyrighted material for your own use as you please. That would include keeping a perfect copy in your head should you have the ability. But you cannot redistributed that copy for profit without authorization, nor use it for personal gain (quoting it to sound smart) without giving proper credit. To sum up: Can you have a discussion about a copyrighted book with a friend? yes. Can you quote large sections of the book to your friend? yes. Can you quote large sections of the book to someone in an official capacity (a professor, lawyer, etc.) Yes, assuming you don't claim the work as your own. Can you type out a copy of the book to store on your computer, or shiny new Amazon Kindle? Yes. But you cannot then reprint the book for a friend (creating two copies and distributing the second), or allow the digital version onto a network, etc. etc. In none of these cases has copyright in anyway violated free speech.To answer another part of yagnyavalkya's question: I do not think that any of the technologies mentioned nor, indeed, any technology at all threatens author's rights. Criminals threaten authors rights.
There was a time when a person with a worthwhile idea could only share it through speech. He was reasonably well protected from having his idea stolen in that he could choose to simply not tell anyone. As soon as he did tell someone though, it was out of his hands. Fast forward to the introduction of cheap, efficient printing and creative folks could share their ideas much more widely but with the same basic risks. To mitigate this risk we established copyright law. That law was designed to enforce author's rights on many media. Electronic media is a leap forward in our ability to distribute information but not a radical departure from traditional media as regards copyright protection. The law must adapt to handle electronic media better and it is. Just as it adapted to handle radio and television.
Lastly, in what way does Consequentialism effect copyright? You can hold a Consequentialist view of reality all you want, you can't legally distributed copyrighted material. Whether it actually hurts anyone or not, it will remain illegal completely regardless of your philosophical view of the act. Laws, to a very great extent, reject consequentialism as a matter of course: taking an absolute view not of "right and wrong" but of "legal and illegal." As regards instrumentalism... I'm not sure what idea you're trying to offer. Instrumentalism is valuing the utility of a concept over its absolute reality. To be sure, copyright is a useful concept (economically anyway) with an unclear relationship to how humans actually use information. But since we aren't talking about scientific theories and testing methodology I'm not sure how much that matters. The question of Instrumentalism can only be applied to things that pertain to physical reality. Society itself is an abstraction valued more for its usefulness than any absolute physical truth to which it applies. Within society, economics and in turn copyright law exist as further abstractions. Rejecting instrumentalism as it applies to abstractions is ridicules. You can't judge something that exists outside of reality based on how well it applies to reality. Or is there some angle here that I've missed?
| AidanSonoda wrote: |
This has been a topic of interest of late with the RIAA being called out for having claimed that copying music from a purchased CD, to your hard-drive may be illegal (Marc Fisher, Washington Post: December 30, 2007). As it turns out the RIAA only makes that claim when there is an expectation that they may have been copied to a "shared" folder. You have the right to store copyrighted material for your own use as you please. |
Are you sure about that?
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/docu/e-copyright.htiThere are a number of interesting issues surrounding copyright in the modern world. The advent of the internet and other electronic communications technology has had a profound effect on copyright and in most cases the industries concerned have been slow to react or have reacted inappropriately.
The assumption has always been that a 'pirate' copy of a piece of music, item of software, film or book deprives the author of fair remuneration for that work. There are a number of problems with this assumption. One problem is that many pirate copies do not represent a potential sale. How many people have pirate software which they would not buy, even if they could not get a pirate copy? How many people have pirate copies of tunes that they would not otherwise have if they were forced to pay? The assumption that each pirate copy represents a potential sale is false and unhelpful.
There are also structural problems in the music, film and software industries which make the problems worse. Investment in breaking a new band used to be enormous - A&R, publicity, tours etc which meant that the labels had to recover these costs by charging a relatively high margin on the end product (record or CD). Faced with paying upwards of £5 for a three minute piece of music many consumers chose the illegal option via Napster and the like. The industry has started to change and with the advent of legal internet downloads - ITunes and the like - tracks are now priced much more reasonably, which in turn reduces the incentives to act illegally. The downside is that the industry is now much less likely to invest large sums in new talent. To me (as someone who has worked as a recording engineer) it is a downer - recording studios have been going bust all over the country - but I think it was inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer.
The software industry has faced the problem for longer. Shareware, trialware and time-limited software are the major responses for the cheaper software products. Expensive specialist software is less of an issue because here the support contract is worth more than the price of the software (for example, working in a recording studio you would not even think of using a pirate version of Cubase).
Having said that, there is still far too much effort put into software protection (in my opinion). In my youth I used to crack software just for the challenge - I never used the software, simply breaking the protection was the buzz. There are a lot of people who still feel this way and this makes huge investment in copy protection a waste. When the film industry announced the protection it was planning for DVDs, there were statements about the system being good for 3-4 years before anyone would manage to crack it. The very next day on the internet the first cracks appeared. Much better to accept that there will be an amount of piracy and concentrate on providing user-support to registered users, rather than spend millions on copy protection that will be broken in hours.
Rather than view each pirate copy as a lost sale, there is an argument for considering such copies as potential sales. Microsoft used to run a 'Select' scheme for schools, when I was teaching, which meant that we got everything they had (in a big box of CDs), and paid a reasonably small amount for what we actually used. This meant that pupils were introduced to Microsoft products at school and college. As many of these would go on to industry/business they would, of course, want to use the same software, and Microsoft would therefore gain sales. I think the same philosophy applies with other software. Hobbyists would never buy a copy of Cubase, for example, at several hundred pounds. If they use a pirate version to play around with, however, and later go on to become a professional user then they will, of course, order the legitimate version.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| AidanSonoda wrote: |
This has been a topic of interest of late with the RIAA being called out for having claimed that copying music from a purchased CD, to your hard-drive may be illegal (Marc Fisher, Washington Post: December 30, 2007). As it turns out the RIAA only makes that claim when there is an expectation that they may have been copied to a "shared" folder. You have the right to store copyrighted material for your own use as you please. |
Are you sure about that?
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/docu/e-copyright.hti |
Note: I do not live in the UK. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA was on the radio Thursday (NPR: Talk of the Nation), outlining the RIAAs position on personal use copies and refuting the claims of the Washington Post that the RIAA considered such copying an illegal act.
More Media here. | AidanSonoda wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | AidanSonoda wrote: |
This has been a topic of interest of late with the RIAA being called out for having claimed that copying music from a purchased CD, to your hard-drive may be illegal (Marc Fisher, Washington Post: December 30, 2007). As it turns out the RIAA only makes that claim when there is an expectation that they may have been copied to a "shared" folder. You have the right to store copyrighted material for your own use as you please. |
Are you sure about that?
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/docu/e-copyright.hti |
Note: I do not live in the UK. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA was on the radio Thursday (NPR: Talk of the Nation), outlining the RIAAs position on personal use copies and refuting the claims of the Washington Post that the RIAA considered such copying an illegal act.
More Media here. |
It was not the RIAA specifically that I was referring to - it was the assertion that you have the right to store copyright material for your own use as you please. I'm not sure that is correct. | Bikerman wrote: |
| AidanSonoda wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | AidanSonoda wrote: |
This has been a topic of interest of late with the RIAA being called out for having claimed that copying music from a purchased CD, to your hard-drive may be illegal (Marc Fisher, Washington Post: December 30, 2007). As it turns out the RIAA only makes that claim when there is an expectation that they may have been copied to a "shared" folder. You have the right to store copyrighted material for your own use as you please. |
Are you sure about that?
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/docu/e-copyright.hti |
Note: I do not live in the UK. Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA was on the radio Thursday (NPR: Talk of the Nation), outlining the RIAAs position on personal use copies and refuting the claims of the Washington Post that the RIAA considered such copying an illegal act.
More Media here. |
It was not the RIAA specifically that I was referring to - it was the assertion that you have the right to store copyright material for your own use as you please. I'm not sure that is correct. |
I will look into it further and see if I can come up with some direct sources at another time. The RIAA is the body most active in bringing lawsuits in this area of law. They have every reason to sue anyone they can within cost constraints. If there was a system under law that allowed them to take such actions I am quite certain they would. That they have explicitly stated that they do not consider such acts illegal seems a strong indicator of the state of the law. God knows they are certainly more knowledgeable on the subject than I. At the least, I expect their position holds the door open for anyone faced with such a suit to plead civil due diligence.
Perhaps you have an act of archiving in mind that you think would be illegal? Or a case in mind you might point me to? It would certainly shorten my research! | AidanSonoda wrote: |
| Perhaps you have an act of archiving in mind that you think would be illegal? Or a case in mind you might point me to? It would certainly shorten my research! |
Unfortunately I don't. The problem that I see (certainly here in the UK) is that I don't know of any precedent. The legal system here relies heavily on precedent and I'm not aware of any trial cases in this specific area. All I have to go on is the 1988 Act here in the UK | Bikerman wrote: |
| AidanSonoda wrote: | | Perhaps you have an act of archiving in mind that you think would be illegal? Or a case in mind you might point me to? It would certainly shorten my research! |
Unfortunately I don't. The problem that I see (certainly here in the UK) is that I don't know of any precedent. The legal system here relies heavily on precedent and I'm not aware of any trial cases in this specific area. All I have to go on is the 1988 Act here in the UK |
I understand. It is ridiculously difficult to puzzle these things out. In a land where ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it we have succeeded in making ignorance awfully hard to avoid!
The only case I know of dealing explicitly with digital copyright was the Jammie Thomas case in Oct. But that was strictly a sharing decision (in this case Kazaa).
Personally, I refer to the copyright clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8) which in order to promote the "useful arts" guarantees the rights of artists (and inventors as regards patent law) for a limited time to profit from their work. An archival copy does not infringe upon profit. There are provisions of course regarding the destruction of archival copies when and if the original should be given away or sold... but that is technically "sharing." and not what I'm getting at.
In any-case, I think the RIAA's position makes it extremely unlikely you are going to be sued for making archival copies (just keep that p2p software off your computer). And the law, if it does indeed infringe upon that right, in theory ought to catch up with the 220 year old Constitution eventually.
Title17 circ92 is available here. For anyone interested in trying to puzzle it out from the legalese.Yes, I agree with you here - ignorance is hard to avoid, despite best intentions.
I would also agree that it is highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for copying legitimate (ie stuff they have bought) material from one format to another. In fact I suspect that the various industries (software, music & film) would be extremely reluctant to pursue any such prosecution because such action might itself set precedent.
Just my $0.02, but i don't see that what the laws of any given country say (because they're all different, of course), or what the RIAA, MPAA or any such group claim, has anything to do with whether or not copyright is a good thing or not. Laws determine what is legal, not what is right. This is a philosophy forum, so the difference is not trivial.
And it does not matter whether artists, publishers, or any part of any intellectual property industry suffers or not. i'm sure slave owners and several related industries suffered immensely due to the actions of abolitionists, but that did not make the abolitionists immoral. The question of whether copyright is a good thing or not should be settled on its own merit. If it turns out that copyright is intrinsically wrong, then who the hell cares who suffers due to its abolition? They would have been profiting at the expense of an evil law, after all, just like the slavers.
Legal issues and starving artists are red herrings to any philosophical questions involving copyright.
| Indi wrote: |
Just my $0.02, but i don't see that what the laws of any given country say (because they're all different, of course), or what the RIAA, MPAA or any such group claim, has anything to do with whether or not copyright is a good thing or not. Laws determine what is legal, not what is right. This is a philosophy forum, so the difference is not trivial.
And it does not matter whether artists, publishers, or any part of any intellectual property industry suffers or not. i'm sure slave owners and several related industries suffered immensely due to the actions of abolitionists, but that did not make the abolitionists immoral. The question of whether copyright is a good thing or not should be settled on its own merit. If it turns out that copyright is intrinsically wrong, then who the hell cares who suffers due to its abolition? They would have been profiting at the expense of an evil law, after all, just like the slavers.
Legal issues and starving artists are red herrings to any philosophical questions involving copyright. |
No where in this thread do I see anyone claim that laws are in any way related to ethical constructs. Much less attempt to trivialize the distinction between what is legal and what is right. Granted. Legal distinctions and court proceedings are not relevant to a discussion on the moral validity of copyright law. They were pertinent to aspects of yagnyavalkya's original questions and to the discussion that followed. If one cannot follow the course of a conversation freely in a philosophy forum, even off the topic of philosophy, then where can we?
I'm up for a discussion of the moral implications of copyright, but you didn't give me much to work with. Do you consider copyright protections inappropriate in a free society? If not, then how would you defend them? If so, why so? And how would you deal with the practical ramifications of abolishing them?Yeah i don't really see the connection.. the question is, do people, artists still get enough money to keep producing high quality although their products are shared without paying?
| AidanSonoda wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Just my $0.02, but i don't see that what the laws of any given country say (because they're all different, of course), or what the RIAA, MPAA or any such group claim, has anything to do with whether or not copyright is a good thing or not. Laws determine what is legal, not what is right. This is a philosophy forum, so the difference is not trivial.
And it does not matter whether artists, publishers, or any part of any intellectual property industry suffers or not. i'm sure slave owners and several related industries suffered immensely due to the actions of abolitionists, but that did not make the abolitionists immoral. The question of whether copyright is a good thing or not should be settled on its own merit. If it turns out that copyright is intrinsically wrong, then who the hell cares who suffers due to its abolition? They would have been profiting at the expense of an evil law, after all, just like the slavers.
Legal issues and starving artists are red herrings to any philosophical questions involving copyright. |
No where in this thread do I see anyone claim that laws are in any way related to ethical constructs. Much less attempt to trivialize the distinction between what is legal and what is right. Granted. Legal distinctions and court proceedings are not relevant to a discussion on the moral validity of copyright law. They were pertinent to aspects of yagnyavalkya's original questions and to the discussion that followed. If one cannot follow the course of a conversation freely in a philosophy forum, even off the topic of philosophy, then where can we?
I'm up for a discussion of the moral implications of copyright, but you didn't give me much to work with. Do you consider copyright protections inappropriate in a free society? If not, then how would you defend them? If so, why so? And how would you deal with the practical ramifications of abolishing them? |
I think we can all agree that the role of copyright laws is to encourage inovation. but there must be a careful balancing act that one must play. We must balance the incentive for people to innovate (exclusive rights for a certain amount of time) and the ability of people to benefit from innovation (free use of previously innovated material). obviously, companies want to have longer exclusive rights to get more money, and the populus wants shorter (and more reasonable) copyrights time limits to enjoy the use of the innovation of others any way they want. | videoguy wrote: |
| I think we can all agree that the role of copyright laws is to encourage inovation. but there must be a careful balancing act that one must play. We must balance the incentive for people to innovate (exclusive rights for a certain amount of time) and the ability of people to benefit from innovation (free use of previously innovated material). obviously, companies want to have longer exclusive rights to get more money, and the populus wants shorter (and more reasonable) copyrights time limits to enjoy the use of the innovation of others any way they want. |
I would think your comments apply more to patent law than copyright. Copyright on creative works lasts a very long time, indeed can persist through generations of family after the death of the artist. This is very much to protect the ability of artists to profit from creative work, thus incentivising the "useful arts" simply by helping to ensure that artists can make money from their efforts. Otherwise they'd all have to work at McDonalds on the side and wouldn't have time to write novels. That seems like a fairly complete system in and of itself. I'm not sure that the public has any need or reason for creative works to become public domain sooner if at all. That simply isn't necessary in order to benefit from them. The copyright free use of Moby Dick doesn't really encourage further innovation in literature, but the fact that Melville was able to sell it helped to create it in the first place. | Indi wrote: |
J
And it does not matter whether artists, publishers, or any part of any intellectual property industry suffers or not. i'm sure slave owners and several related industries suffered immensely due to the actions of abolitionists, but that did not make the abolitionists immoral. The question of whether copyright is a good thing or not should be settled on its own merit. If it turns out that copyright is intrinsically wrong, then who the hell cares who suffers due to its abolition? They would have been profiting at the expense of an evil law, after all, just like the slavers.
Legal issues and starving artists are red herrings to any philosophical questions involving copyright. |
Comparing intellectual property rights to slave ownership is ridiculous.
By your logic, if I write a novel, I shouldn't be allowed to profit from it, because the novel is an entity with with a right to be free from my exploitation. That's just stupid.That's called stretching the analogy past breaking point. 
It's actually not that stupid, however. The novel IS an entity. You could make the argument that it belongs to humanity generally once it has been published. That is not to say the novel itself has rights but you could construct an argument against the right of the author to 'own' it once published.
Some of us, for example, deplore the re-touching and general messing around with films that Directors seem so keen to indulge in... | furtasacra wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | J
And it does not matter whether artists, publishers, or any part of any intellectual property industry suffers or not. i'm sure slave owners and several related industries suffered immensely due to the actions of abolitionists, but that did not make the abolitionists immoral. The question of whether copyright is a good thing or not should be settled on its own merit. If it turns out that copyright is intrinsically wrong, then who the hell cares who suffers due to its abolition? They would have been profiting at the expense of an evil law, after all, just like the slavers.
Legal issues and starving artists are red herrings to any philosophical questions involving copyright. |
Comparing intellectual property rights to slave ownership is ridiculous.
By your logic, if I write a novel, I shouldn't be allowed to profit from it, because the novel is an entity with with a right to be free from my exploitation. That's just stupid. |
No, that would by your logic, not mine. ^_^; My logic is the one that makes sense.
i did not "compare intellectual property rights to slave ownership" (you did). What i said was quite clear. The argument that copyright should be upheld because some people would suffer if it was not is flawed - and i showed why by using an identical argument that chattel slavery should be upheld because some people would suffer if it was not. You see what i did there? Let me spell it out. i compared the argument that copyright should be upheld to protect people that profit from it to the argument that slavery should be upheld to protect people that profit from it. Both arguments are flawed, and for the same reason. A law should be upheld or dropped based on whether it is just or not, not based on whether or not some people might suffer if it is upheld/dropped.
Clear now?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Some of us, for example, deplore the re-touching and general messing around with films that Directors seem so keen to indulge in... |
Oh, that just disgusts me. i don't mind directors (or writers) tinkering with their works - quite the contrary, i enthusiastically welcome the idea! But what i find absolutely deplorable is that they steal away the version that people fell in love with, and destroy it.
Spielberg feels a need to put walkie talkies and "hippies" in E.T. instead of shotguns and "terrorists"? Go for it, Stevie! But why do you have to deny everyone the version that they liked in the first place? It makes no rational sense. Why not release the original version and the "new director's cut"? Big fans would probably buy both! Others might buy the former, others might buy the latter - but you're not going to sell less DVDs by having two versions... so... why? Personally, i thought the terrorist comment was hilarious, and bitingly clever (considering what followed). The hippie comment is just stupid, and nonsensical.
And don't even get me started on whether or not Han shot first. | Indi wrote: |
i did not "compare intellectual property rights to slave ownership" (you did). What i said was quite clear. The argument that copyright should be upheld because some people would suffer if it was not is flawed - and i showed why by using an identical argument that chattel slavery should be upheld because some people would suffer if it was not. You see what i did there? Let me spell it out. i compared the argument that copyright should be upheld to protect people that profit from it to the argument that slavery should be upheld to protect people that profit from it. Both arguments are flawed, and for the same reason. A law should be upheld or dropped based on whether it is just or not, not based on whether or not some people might suffer if it is upheld/dropped.
Clear now?
|
I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you DID compare intellectual property rights to slave ownership. You may have MEANT to compare the arguments about them, but that's not what you originally said. If you had, there would have had no need to clarify your statements.
In any case, YOUR argument is flawed. You seem to think that copyright ownership and protection is immoral, but you have yet to justify that position.
I utterly fail to see what is so terribly immoral about creative people wanting to be paid for their work, and not wanting to share the potential revenue with any old schlub who can't write, paint, compose or photograph their way out of a wet paper bag, but boy, they can sure push buttons on a copier and burn cds! I also fail to understand the immorality of laws protecting the income of creative people from the aforementioned schlubs.
I realize that media conglomerates USE copyright law as a bludgeon to harass, intimidate, bankrupt and hopefully silence critics, parodists, etc. and that most certainly is wrong. However, that is deliberate misuse of the law. The law itself is not at fault.
Here's a rather personalized, but nonetheless practical viewpoint: Without copyright law, if I were to write a book and publish it, I wouldn't OWN it. Not exclusively, anyway; the whole world would co-own everything I published. Anybody who wanted to could print up copies and sell them without giving me a penny. Since I write for enjoyment, if I couldn't make money from publishing, I would have no incentive to do so. I'd still write (in my spare time from my wage slave job), but I wouldn't let anybody else see it, thus depriving the world of anything worthwhile I might have to say. One could argue that my withholding information or ideas is wrong.
That brings us to the whole sticky wicket of ideas belonging to everybody. "Ideas should be free." In a sense, that's true, but look at it this way; some people think FOOD should be free. However, if I plant a garden, and water it and weed it and tend it all summer long, and then some jackass comes and picks all my vegetables, and justifies his actions by saying "The glorious bounty of Mother Earth belongs equally to all" I'm gonna whack him in the head with a shovel. I didn't do all that work so I could starve while he sold my beautiful tomatoes from the back of his truck on the side of the road.
Anyway, here is your assignment, people. If all information and entertainment is to be distributed freely to anybody who wants it, how shall the people who create it be compensated? You HAVE to give them SOMETHING; if they are forced to dig ditches, or perform some other wretched task to put food on the table, that doesn't leave them much time or energy to be brilliant, and the world is stuck with nothing to do but watch YouTube videos of kittens crawling in and out of empty tissue boxes. And guard their vegetables.
Suggestions? IDEAS? | furtasacra wrote: |
| In any case, YOUR argument is flawed. You seem to think that copyright ownership and protection is immoral, but you have yet to justify that position. |
Having read back through this thread I am puzzled. Nobody has made any suggestion that copyright is immoral so this appears to be a straw-man fallacy. Maybe you should read Indi's posting a bit more carefully (look out particularly for the word 'if').
The question of morality has not really been addressed to date. It raises some interesting questions.
example 1.
a) Is it immoral to record a programme and watch it later? No ? (Yes, I know it is legal - forget that).
b) How about if you forget to record it and borrow someone else's recording ?
example 2.
a) Is it immoral to rip your old vinyl albums to CD/DVD ? No ?
b) What about if your own copy is scratched..would it be immoral to borrow a copy and rip that?
What is the moral distinction between case a) and case b) in the two examples (if there is one) ?
Exactly what are the moral arguments on the issues of file sharing? Stealing doesn't really cut it since you are not depriving the owner of property (you may never have intended to buy the book/CD/video). The tomato analogy doesn't work. If someone takes your tomatoes without paying then they are depriving you of goods which you could otherwise sell for profit. If someone downloads your book then they have deprived you of nothing (unless you make the unwarranted assumption that they would otherwise have bought it).
If that same person then prints your book and sells it then clearly they are depriving you of a potential sale, and 'stealing' is probably an appropriate charge, but if they keep it for personal use then they are not doing so.
(just to be crystal clear - I am not taking a position either way on the morality or immorality of copyright, simply throwing up a few points for consideration.) | Bikerman wrote: |
Is it immoral to record a programme and watch it later? No ? (Yes, I know it is legal - forget that).
b) How about if you forget to record it and borrow someone else's recording ?
example 2.
a) Is it immoral to rip your old vinyl albums to CD/DVD ? No ?
b) What about if your own copy is scratched..would it be immoral to borrow a copy and rip that?
|
The answers to the questions are
It is not immoral but may be illegal to record and watch later
There is a diffrence between morality and legality
Borrow and rip is not immoral and I dont think it is illegal either
Actually I want to know here in this forum is it immoral or illegal to share the TV you are watching in your PC with some one else online
say for example
I have TV tumer card and I am watching a cricket match or a movie
But I also have a pc to pc connection with a friend of mine elsewhere Is it illegal to allow the other person to watch what I am watching
or soemting bigger like P to P TV
what are the legalities involved in this
Late of course comes the question if the other person is recording the programme I am allowing him/her to watch
lets have your views on this | furtasacra wrote: |
| I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you DID compare intellectual property rights to slave ownership. You may have MEANT to compare the arguments about them, but that's not what you originally said. If you had, there would have had no need to clarify your statements. |
i may be splitting hairs here, but the fact that i had to clarify my statements does not make them say something completely different than what they say. ^_^; The fact that i had to clarify my statements means that either they were unclear, or you didn't understand them, or a little bit of both.
| furtasacra wrote: |
| In any case, YOUR argument is flawed. You seem to think that copyright ownership and protection is immoral, but you have yet to justify that position. |
Why is it that people always insist on telling me "what i seem to think" rather than just reading what i say i think, or just asking about things i don't mention? As Bikerman already pointed out, i have not said anything about morality of copyright ownership or protection. i have said i dislike copyright owners who publish and then try to "retract" what they have published. i did not call copyright ownership or protection immoral.
Please don't put words in my mouth. If you want to know what i think, either read what i write, or ask me.
| furtasacra wrote: |
| I utterly fail to see what is so terribly immoral about creative people wanting to be paid for their work, and not wanting to share the potential revenue with any old schlub who can't write, paint, compose or photograph their way out of a wet paper bag, but boy, they can sure push buttons on a copier and burn cds! I also fail to understand the immorality of laws protecting the income of creative people from the aforementioned schlubs. |
For the record, your failure to see why they are immoral does not make them moral. Maybe you just lack the imagination necessary to see the problem? Ignorance of alternatives does not make a given position correct.
| furtasacra wrote: |
| Here's a rather personalized, but nonetheless practical viewpoint: Without copyright law, if I were to write a book and publish it, I wouldn't OWN it. Not exclusively, anyway; the whole world would co-own everything I published. Anybody who wanted to could print up copies and sell them without giving me a penny. Since I write for enjoyment, if I couldn't make money from publishing, I would have no incentive to do so. I'd still write (in my spare time from my wage slave job), but I wouldn't let anybody else see it, thus depriving the world of anything worthwhile I might have to say. One could argue that my withholding information or ideas is wrong. |
Alright, let's start there. You have introduced at least three different problems, whether you realize it or not.
First let's deal with the pragmatic consideration - the money issue. Let's highlight where your assumptions are grounded in the nineteenth century: right where you say: "Anybody who wanted to could print up copies and sell them without giving me a penny." What if i didn't print up copies of your book. What if i went around telling everyone the story in your book - just telling, not handing out copies i made. Am i stealing from you? Let's say i am. Let's say that every time i told your story to someone else, i was giving away an imaginary stolen copy of your book. Alright, what if i agreed to give you the proceeds i made from my illegal endeavours - every penny i made from telling people your story - to pay for my crime. Now, what if i told the story for free? Now what are you going to do? Take away my legally earned money (from doing a real job, nothing related to your book because i got no money from disseminating your book)? You are going to take away the money i actually worked for and earned, that i need to pay for my food and such, not because i actually took anything away from you, but merely because i prevented you from making money? Well wait a minute, wait a minute! Why can't i do the same thing? What if i was in the process of writing a similar story, but you published first - in other words, your publication action prevented me from making money. Why can't i demand money from you? Hm. Tricky questions.
Second, the whole "enjoyment" thing. ^_^; You start out railing against me because i have the gall to think that copyright ownership is immoral (which i never said), and insist that i have to justify "my" position while never bothering to justify yours except by saying you "utterly fail" to see the alternative, and you want to get money for what you were doing anyway for fun. Hello? If you enjoy doing it... why should you be allowed to demand money from me for doing it? If i like masturbating, should i be allowed to send you a bill every time i do it? When you strip away all of the righteous indignation, isn't that the core of your point? ^_^; You want to write, and you want me to pay for it? If you didn't want to write, but i wanted you to write, then you might have a case - but in that situation i could commission you to, and there would be your paycheque. The problem only seems to arise when you "give away" your story - ie, publish it - and then want to get paid for everyone that stumbles across it, whether they like it or not (remember, you pay for the book before you read it). Well? How does this sound to you?
Third, this question of "ownership". Who does "own" intellectual property? You admit that it can't be the author, and i'd say that much is obvious (it is, in fact, the basis of my aforementioned objection to people like Speilberg trying to "reclaim" what they have published). So what rights should the author have to control his own work? Should he be allowed to prevent modification or adaptation? Do i have the (moral, not legal) right to make a movie out of Neuromancer? Can William Gibson stop me? Can he demand a portion of the proceeds i make? How much? Who decides?
| furtasacra wrote: |
| That brings us to the whole sticky wicket of ideas belonging to everybody. "Ideas should be free." In a sense, that's true, but look at it this way; some people think FOOD should be free. However, if I plant a garden, and water it and weed it and tend it all summer long, and then some jackass comes and picks all my vegetables, and justifies his actions by saying "The glorious bounty of Mother Earth belongs equally to all" I'm gonna whack him in the head with a shovel. I didn't do all that work so I could starve while he sold my beautiful tomatoes from the back of his truck on the side of the road. |
This is what they call a straw man argument. ^_^; You have dreamed up this imaginary person with ridiculously fanciful ideas, shown that his position is obviously non-sensical, and then... what? ^_^;
Let's get real. No one really believes that food should be free. Most believe that it should never be denied to anyone that needs it, but that's not the same thing, not by a long shot. Clearly if food costs to create, anyone that consumes it should pay those costs. But should they pay whatever the farmer feels like charging? Is it moral to force someone to pay for something beyond the costs of production, especially when they can't survive without it?
Let's make a more workable analogy. What can we say about ideas? Well, here are some facts - they cost nothing to use (in and of themselves), they can cost time and energy to create, some people enjoy creating them and disseminating them for free, and if an idea is needed someone will have it eventually. The last one is the only one i can see anyone objecting to, but i can justify it using the old monkeys on typewriters idea - given enough time, someone will write Shakespeare, if Shakespeare does not get around to it first. Yes, it may not be identical, it will probably differ quite a bit, but it will scratch the same itch.
So, what if there was a river, and a person built a bridge over it. Now, the bridge cost him time and energy to create, and it costs nothing to use (in and of itself). It was needed, and he happened to be the person who built it first.
Now, this person sets up a toll booth, and charges everyone that crosses. Sure, why not? He built the bridge, right? It's his right, isn't it?
But remember! If the bridge was needed, someone would have built it eventually. And it might have been someone who would have enjoyed building it, and wanted it to be used freely by everyone. What happened, really, is that the toll booth guy happened to build it first, before the person who would have shared it for free. In fact, his bridge being there prevents a person who might have built one for free use. He is robbing everyone who might have had the same bridge for free.
Interesting, hm? It suggests that anyone that charges someone to enjoy their idea might be robbing them, because eventually someone would have come along that allows them to enjoy roughly the same idea for free.
| furtasacra wrote: |
Anyway, here is your assignment, people. If all information and entertainment is to be distributed freely to anybody who wants it, how shall the people who create it be compensated? You HAVE to give them SOMETHING; if they are forced to dig ditches, or perform some other wretched task to put food on the table, that doesn't leave them much time or energy to be brilliant, and the world is stuck with nothing to do but watch YouTube videos of kittens crawling in and out of empty tissue boxes. And guard their vegetables.
Suggestions? IDEAS? |
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious... but you have already suggested that the people who create this stuff are already compensated. They enjoy creating it.
Who decides that that's not enough? The content creators? Well, hell, why can't they just decide they want a million dollars for each book sold? Oh, that's right, because the price is actually determined by the people who buy the books, and how much they're willing to pay. What if they value the price at zero? Who gets the right to argue? They're not taking anything from anyone when they read the book and put it back on the shelf, are they? The writer still has his or her wallet and the book store still has the book. But the person who read the book now has the idea, and they paid what they thought it was worth - zero. Everyone wins, or do they?I am SO ANNOYED that I can't respond to this in anything approaching a rational manner. If you honestly think that the glorious joy of creativity is the only compensation that an artist deserves, you are just one of THOSE .... people. Go buy some art supplies and make your own paintings and sculptures. It's not as cheap and easy as Martha Stewart wants you to think.
I will have to come back to this later, when I calm down.
| furtasacra wrote: |
| I am SO ANNOYED that I can't respond to this in anything approaching a rational manner. If you honestly think that the glorious joy of creativity is the only compensation that an artist deserves, you are just one of THOSE .... people. Go buy some art supplies and make your own paintings and sculptures. It's not as cheap and easy as Martha Stewart wants you to think. |
One of "THOSE" .... people? ^_^; i could be, i guess.
i'll have to take a pass on painting and sculpting. Not really my cup of tea. i've always found paint too messy, and if that's too messy, i'd imagine sculpting is far too messy for my taste.
i prefer drawing, myself - i have a selection of mechanical pencils that i prefer for the preliminary sketching, some of them quite rare, like the 0.3 mm lead ones - and i ink with pens, and a brush pen, when and if i bother to ink. i have only coloured very rarely, and when i do, i ink, scan, trace, then colour in GIMP (used to use CorelDraw and Corel PhotoPaint originally, years ago). i also own a Graphire 2 tablet, but it's not connected at the moment - i usually sketch for fun, and don't bother to ink or colour unless it's for a gift or a job of some sort.
But sketching is just an amusement, not something i diligently practice (although, i have spent an unfortunately large sum of money on several "How to draw manga" books). Writing is my "thing". i have never formally published, but i have distributed several stories for free via file-sharing P2P networks (almost all eMule, but a long time ago one or two over DirectConnect). i have had several people pestering me about "getting serious" and trying to publish something in the traditional sense, but i usually just McCoy them ("dammit, <insert name here>, i'm an engineer, not a playwright").
The only form of art i have ever done "professionally" is music, as a guitarist in a band when i was younger. i wrote several songs for the band which were performed live and quite popular. We never cut any records - mostly because we simply didn't care to - although we recorded our jam sessions, and our live shows, and distributed them freely. We got paid for playing live, but that's it, and that's not really a copyright issue. We did come up with the idea of "selling T-shirts", but... well... ^_^; we just took blank T-shirts given to us by people, spray-painted our logo and some silly saying or another on them and then gave them back. i cannot recall actually collecting any money for them at any point. i haven't played in ages, though, and i haven't even picked up a guitar except when people want to jam.
So am i one of "THOSE" people? ^_^;
| furtasacra wrote: |
| I will have to come back to this later, when I calm down. |
Music might help. i'd offer to send you some copies of this nice band i know, if only i could dig up the cassettes. ^_^; Or, i could write you a short story - just give me a springboard (setting, basic concept, whatever) and i'll go from there.
But, i suppose by your logic, i'd have to charge you, wouldn't i? ^_^;
----------------
Anyway, in all seriousness, i never said that "creativity is the only compensation that an artist deserves". That would be yet another straw man argument you have set up (although, oddly, rather than attacking the straw man you built, you go into such a fury that you can't attack it... you don't need to take my advice, i suppose, but you really should consider that you are doing this straw man thing all wrong). i said that if an artist enjoys creating their stuff so much that they would do it for free... aren't they already compensated? If no one wants to pay them, they still want to create their art, so obviously the process is satisfying them in some way, and clearly it's satisfying them at least enough to justify the creation of the art. In plain English, they've already been paid. Anything else is bonus.
You said that you write for enjoyment, and that you would do it even if you didn't get paid. So i ask... then why should i pay you? Because you demand that i pay you to do what you enjoy doing and would do regardless? | furtasacra wrote: |
I am SO ANNOYED that I can't respond to this in anything approaching a rational manner. If you honestly think that the glorious joy of creativity is the only compensation that an artist deserves, you are just one of THOSE .... people. Go buy some art supplies and make your own paintings and sculptures. It's not as cheap and easy as Martha Stewart wants you to think.
I will have to come back to this later, when I calm down. |
So you waste your time and the reader's by posting a rant. I think Indi was being excessively nice by responding to this (maybe he's blissed-out on music).
If you get angry when someone raises valid points that you don't like, then maybe philosophy is not for you. If you throw up a straw man argument then you should not be surprised if someone systematically demolishes it - I would have done the same had you tried that with me.
PS - to add to the discussion, rather than simply berate you;
I enjoy education. I spend a lot of time trying to educate - both on these forums and in other fora. I do this because I want to - I don't get paid and neither do I expect to. I am currently working on several projects (to do with science on the web) for which I have no expectations of being remunerated. A couple of the projects may result in some money coming my way - if so then I'll be delighted, if not then I've lost nothing. I could take contract work constructing materials to the contractor's specifications and thereby make some money - just as you could write on a commission basis for papers/magazines. If you do that then you recieve a fee for your work and accept that it is no longer 'yours'. That's fine. If, however, you do what I do - create materials because you want to and enjoy doing so - then why do you expect others to pay for your enjoyment?
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total"So you waste your time and the reader's by posting a rant. I think Indi was being excessively nice by responding to this (maybe he's blissed-out on music).
If you get angry when someone raises valid points that you don't like, then maybe philosophy is not for you. If you throw up a straw man argument then you should not be surprised if someone systematically demolishes it - I would have done the same had you tried that with me."
yes, very nice indeed.
I think that copyright should only protect to the bare minimum to keep creativity alive. It just has to barely outweigh the cost of production, just enough so there is still incentive to create, even if people dont make as much money as they are used to.
| Bikerman wrote: |
The assumption has always been that a 'pirate' copy of a piece of music, item of software, film or book deprives the author of fair remuneration for that work. There are a number of problems with this assumption. One problem is that many pirate copies do not represent a potential sale. How many people have pirate software which they would not buy, even if they could not get a pirate copy? How many people have pirate copies of tunes that they would not otherwise have if they were forced to pay? The assumption that each pirate copy represents a potential sale is false and unhelpful. |
You misunderstand the point of copyright.
Copyright is there to introduce an artificial scarcity. It is a deliberate distortion of the free market of ideas. Let's be honest, the marginal cost of a piece of music (say) is the price of a blank CD. In a free market, that's what we would have to pay for the said piece of music. Unfortunately, the actual cost of making the piece of music is quite expensive. You have to pay the composer, the performer, other musicians, engineers, album cover artist etc etc etc money. If you can't sell the CDs for enough money to cover those costs (which you can't without copyright law) the music won't get made at all. The same applies to writing, painting, films, software etc. All of those things would still exist, but on a strictly amateur basis. We'd be stuck in YouTube hell.I disagree. If we take music as an example (it's the one I know best) then yes, the internet has brought big changes. I used to work in a studio and the standard cost for an artist was £500 per day (with engineer thrown in) - unless they were signed to a label in which case it was between £1500 and £4000 per day. Those days have now largely gone - many studios have closed and others have downsized. This is partly because of internet piracy but more, I think, because the technology to produce an album is now within reach of anyone with even a modest budget.
I've worked with a few artists who make a pretty reasonable living without a big label supporting them - from gigs, merchandising and their own sales of cds. A couple of acts I know give away their music on the internet in order to build a fan-base for their gigs - they seem to think it works well for them.
I agree that the days of the monolithic record labels stepping in and bunging millions at a new talent are probably over, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing - remember Sigue Sigue Sputnik? I'm personally all in favour of decentralising music, since I like to watch live bands in small venues. If it means that we don't get so many supergroups and superstars then I can live with that...
Piracy has, for sure, big implications, but not all of them are negative...
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Those days have now largely gone - many studios have closed and others have downsized. This is partly because of internet piracy but more, I think, because the technology to produce an album is now within reach of anyone with even a modest budget. |
i'd say more the latter than the former. The only reason artists are even bothering with the record companies and big recording studios nowadays is a combination of inertia (that's the way it's always been done) and greed (that's the way to make the biggest bucks for the least amount of effort).
My father is a former professional musician, too - which is where i got it. He went all the way as far as "traditional" professional musician goes (record deal, recorded albums, etc. - even met Prince Philip), but that was in the 60s and 70s. Starting in mid-late 80s he stopped all that and started making music without all that corporate nonsense: live shows and tapes cut for whoever asked, on demand. In the mid-90s he started putting together his own "recording studio" (starting with a 4-track reel-to-reel he salvaged, believe it or not - i even learned how to literally splice tracks because of it) which my band and several other independent bands have taken advantage of over the years - all for free, just because he loves playing producer and perfecting the quality of the recordings he makes. Nowadays his "studio" is all digital, but dirt cheap - he has a $2000 digital audio workstation that is the backbone of it, but even that is on the way out, and he will do everything on the computer in future, all with free software.
To put it short:
- His studio (almost, but not yet) costs next to nothing (the freaking bathroom is the recording booth for drums!) - all of the components of which are made freely by people who love to do it, and working on the project was payment enough.
- His music is available for free (the only time he charges is when he plays live venues, and only then if the venue is charging and its not for charity), because he loves making and sharing it, and that is enough.
- His studio is available for free (several bands have recorded songs there), because he loves playing producer and making a quality track, and that is enough.
- He teaches for free! (Provided you are willing to conform to his timetable. If you want scheduled lessons with a proper lesson plan, you pay.)
So, if you are a musician, and wanted to make an album - of the same quality as the professionals - it is possible to do it for free. Your only cost is the CDs you burn if on - if you even bother to do that.
There is simply no need for recording studios or record labels any more... unless you need their assistance to cut your record. But there's nothing wrong with that, it's the same as any other profession: you can do everything "in house", or you can contract out bits that you can't/don't want to handle internally.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I've worked with a few artists who make a pretty reasonable living without a big label supporting them - from gigs, merchandising and their own sales of cds. A couple of acts I know give away their music on the internet in order to build a fan-base for their gigs - they seem to think it works well for them. |
That's the way we did it. We made plenty enough on live shows alone to get by. We gave our tapes away because we didn't need to sell them.
But if someone wants to sell tapes and not perform live, i say let 'em. If they can sell enough to get by, good on them. If they can't then they should change their strategy... same as what anyone else would have to do in any other field.
And if someone doesn't want to play live or sell tapes - they just want to write and make money off of that - i say let 'em. If they can find a way to do that, good on them.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I agree that the days of the monolithic record labels stepping in and bunging millions at a new talent are probably over, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing - remember Sigue Sigue Sputnkik? I'm personally all in favour of decentralising music, since I like to watch live bands in small venues. If it means that we don't get so many supergroups and superstars then I can live with that...
Piracy has, for sure, big implications, but not all of them are negative... |
What will happen is bands like Nickelback will now have to work to sell two and a half million albums, rather than going into the studio for a couple of weeks, then looking pretty for the rest of the year, outside of playing a show once or twice a week (if that). i have no objection to them making a million dollars a year. And if they can find a way to do it without putting as much effort out as the musician who works hard playing nightly shows and makes just a few percent of what they make, good on them. But i am not going to weep if they have to go door to door themselves to sell those two and a half million albums, instead of sitting back and letting their record company do it.<slight digression from the topic at hand>
Your Dad and I have a lot in common I think. I also have my home studio (I set it up after being made redundant at Corning) and I went to learn the ropes by working in a London studio for 6 months (in return for board and lodging). I also did a lot of work on 2inch master so I got good at splicing and other tape tricks (many of which we spend ages trying to reproduce digitally nowadays). I've recorded a couple of Bands here in my little room - if you come across 'The Merkins' or 'Nathan Hollywood' then you'll probably be listening to my front room
Drums are a bugger to record well - most people cop-out and use midi nowadays, but I was taught to mike-up drum kits by one of the best in the biz - Gwyn Mathias (who's studio I worked in) - so I keep persevering (when my wife is away, of course).
I'm not a musician (I can get a tune out of most keyboard instruments and I have good pitch - used to be perfect but it's slipped as I get older and I'm sometimes a semi-tone out ), but I always lived with/around musicians in my youth. My ex-lodger/best friend/best man, Jez, is the drummer with Swervedriver, and it was staying in his various studios in London that gave me the bug.
<end of digression> My $0.02 (Currently over $1 in 1910 dollars):
Intellectual property laws are for pussies who don't want to work.
Can I say pussies on frihost?
Anyway, my point is that we have to work every day to support ourselves. To put shelter over our heads, to put food on our tables and clothes on our kids. If we don't, then we will suffer, and others will suffer.
The people out there chasing the American dream, of having luxury without working for it, and there are a metric assload of them, have to try to figure out how to make someone else do the work that needs to be done to support their habits.
Now, a lot of devices have been constructed to facilitate this. This is more or less the purpose for which modern government was instituted.
Government.
Intellectual property.
Ponzi schemes.
Welfare.
Gosh, I could really go on and on but I will leave that as an exercise for you as the reader of this post.
But I've digressed, my point was that, well... I don't remember my point.
Send my love to your mother,
Uwe
It seems to me that without copyright, intellectuals would have no reason to create other than for the sole purpose of creation. However, this in itself is the basis of open source programs. Personally, although I find this to be a bit harsh, I feel that we should leave programming to be a hobby and not a pure profession. The main problem in the programming society today is that for the same services that people were paying tons of money for in the past are easily rendered by thousands of adolescents of today. As a result, while the level of programming is advancing, those of the older age are bitter about their loss of a way of life.
In terms of music, I think it's about time that it became a little more evenly distributed. After all, why does Britney Spears deserve that much money?
| thinkfacility wrote: |
| It seems to me that without copyright, intellectuals would have no reason to create other than for the sole purpose of creation. However, this in itself is the basis of open source programs. Personally, although I find this to be a bit harsh, I feel that we should leave programming to be a hobby and not a pure profession. The main problem in the programming society today is that for the same services that people were paying tons of money for in the past are easily rendered by thousands of adolescents of today. As a result, while the level of programming is advancing, those of the older age are bitter about their loss of a way of life. |
This is not quite possible, I think.
I'm of the older age myself. I was a bit of a demon programmer in the early days of computing. I wrote several programs for the BBC micro which are still, I believe, in use today in special education (touch explorer is one example if anyone wants to look it up). I wrote that, and other programs, on placement when studying for my degree, so I received no money for them (and nor did I expect to).
The situation today is different. It is still possible to write 'little' programs, for sure, but the 'big' stuff takes thousands (or more) of man-hours to write and is normally done by teams of programmers. I'm a big fan (and user) of open-source software but the reality in business is that there has to be someone at the end of a phone to sort out problems in the software. That can be done in several ways - companies charging for support of open-source code is one way, for example - so I'm not advocating a 'Microsoft Megalith' approach.
In my last job I worked as a systems manager for Corning and much of the 'critical' production software was bespoke in-house stuff (the software that drove the machines that made the optical fibre), and was written and supported by our team of level 1 and 2 programmers.
The accounting, sales and desktop software, however, was off-the-shelf standard apps, and required third-party support for when the wheels fell off. | Bikerman wrote: |
| thinkfacility wrote: | | It seems to me that without copyright, intellectuals would have no reason to create other than for the sole purpose of creation. However, this in itself is the basis of open source programs. Personally, although I find this to be a bit harsh, I feel that we should leave programming to be a hobby and not a pure profession. The main problem in the programming society today is that for the same services that people were paying tons of money for in the past are easily rendered by thousands of adolescents of today. As a result, while the level of programming is advancing, those of the older age are bitter about their loss of a way of life. |
This is not quite possible, I think.
I'm of the older age myself. I was a bit of a demon programmer in the early days of computing. I wrote several programs for the BBC micro which are still, I believe, in use today in special education (touch explorer is one example if anyone wants to look it up). I wrote that, and other programs, on placement when studying for my degree, so I received no money for them (and nor did I expect to).
The situation today is different. It is still possible to write 'little' programs, for sure, but the 'big' stuff takes thousands (or more) of man-hours to write and is normally done by teams of programmers. I'm a big fan (and user) of open-source software but the reality in business is that there has to be someone at the end of a phone to sort out problems in the software. That can be done in several ways - companies charging for support of open-source code is one way, for example - so I'm not advocating a 'Microsoft Megalith' approach.
In my last job I worked as a systems manager for Corning and much of the 'critical' production software was bespoke in-house stuff (the software that drove the machines that made the optical fibre), and was written and supported by our team of level 1 and 2 programmers.
The accounting, sales and desktop software, however, was off-the-shelf standard apps, and required third-party support for when the wheels fell off. |
i think all that's a red herring anyway. Free software is not about intellectual property or copyright so much as it is about the practical problems that arise from proprietary technology. Let's say you decide to use Microsoft Access to store your company database, and then Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support. Well, you're screwed, aren't you. It can and has happened to companies, resulting in huge costs to reverse engineer the software and/or port it to a new format. And, of course, any reverse engineering is illegal (in some countries). You become a criminal for trying to save your own data, because some other company couldn't (or didn't want to) manage their business.
By contrast, if they'd use free software (free as in speech, not as in beer, as they say), then they would have full and open access to the source code for whatever technology they used. If the technology became obsolete, no reverse engineering is necessary (because you have the original code), and you don't become a criminal for adapting the old technology into something new.
But that's not a copyright issue.
A copyright issue would arise if someone reverse engineered the Access technology - because MS is the copyright holder. Someone that makes a new database technology from scratch is not violating anyone's copyright.
People can - and do - pay money for open source software. That's how companies like Red Hat and Canonical stay get by. If they decide that the support they get from those companies is worth paying for, then good on them. | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | thinkfacility wrote: | | It seems to me that without copyright, intellectuals would have no reason to create other than for the sole purpose of creation. However, this in itself is the basis of open source programs. Personally, although I find this to be a bit harsh, I feel that we should leave programming to be a hobby and not a pure profession. The main problem in the programming society today is that for the same services that people were paying tons of money for in the past are easily rendered by thousands of adolescents of today. As a result, while the level of programming is advancing, those of the older age are bitter about their loss of a way of life. |
This is not quite possible, I think.
I'm of the older age myself. I was a bit of a demon programmer in the early days of computing. I wrote several programs for the BBC micro which are still, I believe, in use today in special education (touch explorer is one example if anyone wants to look it up). I wrote that, and other programs, on placement when studying for my degree, so I received no money for them (and nor did I expect to).
The situation today is different. It is still possible to write 'little' programs, for sure, but the 'big' stuff takes thousands (or more) of man-hours to write and is normally done by teams of programmers. I'm a big fan (and user) of open-source software but the reality in business is that there has to be someone at the end of a phone to sort out problems in the software. That can be done in several ways - companies charging for support of open-source code is one way, for example - so I'm not advocating a 'Microsoft Megalith' approach.
In my last job I worked as a systems manager for Corning and much of the 'critical' production software was bespoke in-house stuff (the software that drove the machines that made the optical fibre), and was written and supported by our team of level 1 and 2 programmers.
The accounting, sales and desktop software, however, was off-the-shelf standard apps, and required third-party support for when the wheels fell off. |
i think all that's a red herring anyway. Free software is not about intellectual property or copyright so much as it is about the practical problems that arise from proprietary technology. Let's say you decide to use Microsoft Access to store your company database, and then Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support. Well, you're screwed, aren't you. It can and has happened to companies, resulting in huge costs to reverse engineer the software and/or port it to a new format. And, of course, any reverse engineering is illegal (in some countries). You become a criminal for trying to save your own data, because some other company couldn't (or didn't want to) manage their business.
By contrast, if they'd use free software (free as in speech, not as in beer, as they say), then they would have full and open access to the source code for whatever technology they used. If the technology became obsolete, no reverse engineering is necessary (because you have the original code), and you don't become a criminal for adapting the old technology into something new.
But that's not a copyright issue.
A copyright issue would arise if someone reverse engineered the Access technology - because MS is the copyright holder. Someone that makes a new database technology from scratch is not violating anyone's copyright.
People can - and do - pay money for open source software. That's how companies like Red Hat and Canonical stay get by. If they decide that the support they get from those companies is worth paying for, then good on them. |
Will MS hold the copyright even after is has gone as in the of access example you have cited
"Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support" is it legal to hold on to copyright even after you drop support
has anyone the knowledge on this? | krishnakumar wrote: |
Will MS hold the copyright even after is has gone as in the of access example you have cited
"Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support" is it legal to hold on to copyright even after you drop support
has anyone the knowledge on this? |
Oh yes, it's quite legal.
First, Microsoft has already dropped support for several of its products. Just recently, they ditched Windows 2000 - which pissed me off personally. It's their product, you only buy a licence to use it. If they decide to just totally drop it cold... tough.
And when corporations "die" they don't just "poof" and fade away. Their assets are owned by someone, somewhere, even if it is just the bank. If Microsoft were to totally fold up tomorrow, someone would still own their copyrights. They could theoretically call them up at any time they wanted to (until the copyright expires). | thinkfacility wrote: |
| The main problem in the programming society today is that for the same services that people were paying tons of money for in the past are easily rendered by thousands of adolescents of today. As a result, while the level of programming is advancing, those of the older age are bitter about their loss of a way of life. |
I'm afraid this is complete bullshit. The main problem with programming today is that it is not professional enough. If you are not prepared to pay people to do a professional job, you will get an amateur performance.
I've seen the code produced by thousands of adolescents and frankly it is just as bad as their attempts at poetry and music.
| Quote: |
| In terms of music, I think it's about time that it became a little more evenly distributed. After all, why does Britney Spears deserve that much money? |
But it's not just about Britney Spears. It's also about the Berlin Philharmonic. You can't expect a 100 piece orchestra to put in the necessary practice to not suck if you don't pay them anything. | Indi wrote: |
i think all that's a red herring anyway. Free software is not about intellectual property or copyright so much as it is about the practical problems that arise from proprietary technology. Let's say you decide to use Microsoft Access to store your company database, and then Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support. Well, you're screwed, aren't you. It can and has happened to companies, resulting in huge costs to reverse engineer the software and/or port it to a new format. And, of course, any reverse engineering is illegal (in some countries). You become a criminal for trying to save your own data, because some other company couldn't (or didn't want to) manage their business.
By contrast, if they'd use free software (free as in speech, not as in beer, as they say), then they would have full and open access to the source code for whatever technology they used. If the technology became obsolete, no reverse engineering is necessary (because you have the original code), and you don't become a criminal for adapting the old technology into something new.
|
No. The Free Software is a red herring in the example you give. The file format is the important thing here. If the Access data format was documented and open, all the problems would go away without the requirement for open source code.
| Quote: |
A copyright issue would arise if someone reverse engineered the Access technology - because MS is the copyright holder. Someone that makes a new database technology from scratch is not violating anyone's copyright.
|
No, I don't think it would. Microsoft would have to prove that you copied something. Reverse engineering a file format is not copying something. Otherwise, there would be no programs except Microsoft Word that could read a Word document. It is, however, possible that you'd be violating a patent.
| Quote: |
| People can - and do - pay money for open source software. That's how companies like Red Hat and Canonical stay get by. If they decide that the support they get from those companies is worth paying for, then good on them. |
Paying money for support is not the same as paying for the code. | Indi wrote: |
First, Microsoft has already dropped support for several of its products. Just recently, they ditched Windows 2000 - which pissed me off personally. It's their product, you only buy a licence to use it. If they decide to just totally drop it cold... tough.
|
You can still use Win 2K. It's just that Microsoft will no longer support it and why should they? It's eight years old.
What I would like to see is a law that says if you decide to drop support for a piece of software you must make the source code available to anybody that has legitimately bought it off you and also to any agent they might appoint. That way, people can choose to upgrade off Win2K or to support it themselves or to ask somebody else to support it. | jeremyp wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i think all that's a red herring anyway. Free software is not about intellectual property or copyright so much as it is about the practical problems that arise from proprietary technology. Let's say you decide to use Microsoft Access to store your company database, and then Microsoft goes out of business, or they just drop Access support. Well, you're screwed, aren't you. It can and has happened to companies, resulting in huge costs to reverse engineer the software and/or port it to a new format. And, of course, any reverse engineering is illegal (in some countries). You become a criminal for trying to save your own data, because some other company couldn't (or didn't want to) manage their business.
By contrast, if they'd use free software (free as in speech, not as in beer, as they say), then they would have full and open access to the source code for whatever technology they used. If the technology became obsolete, no reverse engineering is necessary (because you have the original code), and you don't become a criminal for adapting the old technology into something new.
|
No. The Free Software is a red herring in the example you give. The file format is the important thing here. If the Access data format was documented and open, all the problems would go away without the requirement for open source code. |
Er... ok, so after i said "it is a red herring", you said "no, it is a red herring", and then... pretty much repeated what i said?
Good job? ^_^;
| jeremyp wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
First, Microsoft has already dropped support for several of its products. Just recently, they ditched Windows 2000 - which pissed me off personally. It's their product, you only buy a licence to use it. If they decide to just totally drop it cold... tough.
|
You can still use Win 2K. It's just that Microsoft will no longer support it and why should they? It's eight years old.
What I would like to see is a law that says if you decide to drop support for a piece of software you must make the source code available to anybody that has legitimately bought it off you and also to any agent they might appoint. That way, people can choose to upgrade off Win2K or to support it themselves or to ask somebody else to support it. |
That would never fly. Even if they decided not to support it, they still own it, and may choose at any time to continue supporting it again. What you are advocating is - in effect - a law that would steal from a company.
MS could up and decide to start supporting W2K again tomorrow. Why not? It's their code, it's their right. If you don't like it, there are free alternatives (which is the road i took). There is no reason you have to go with MS (or at least, so they claim, to avoid charges of being a monopoly).
As i said, all of this is a red herring, because it is not the same issue as copyright protection. If a work is copyrighted, then i can't go to other alternatives. If i wanted to make a sequel to Buckaroo Banzai, what alternatives can i go to? There is one and only one Buckaroo Banzai, and the copyright holder holds an absolute monopoly over the entire world as far as Buckaroo Banzai goes. By contrast, if you don't like MS, you have other options. You could go Mac or Linux, or, if you really want to use something that is only available for W2K, you could go Wine or ReactOS. So it's not really an issue.
