- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time
|
|
|
Comments (39)
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
Grouch, both are pre-emptive regulations about what I may or may not do. They are identical in that they make illegal a voluntary action.
I don't care if someone is enticing people to murder, much less enticing to "anti-social behavior". Unless there is a victim who can demonstrate harm, there is no crime.
I don't care if someone is enticing people to murder, much less enticing to "anti-social behavior". Unless there is a victim who can demonstrate harm, there is no crime.
grouch:
Sorry, you are all wet.
Your argument ignores the effect of eliminating IP protection will have on the supply of software. It is anti-social to deprive society of useful programs that people wish to use simply because other programmers can't play around with the code.
Sorry, you are all wet.
Your argument ignores the effect of eliminating IP protection will have on the supply of software. It is anti-social to deprive society of useful programs that people wish to use simply because other programmers can't play around with the code.
dinotrac:
Your argument ignores the exercise of postulating two extreme hypothetical laws for the purpose of examining and comparing their differences.
Your argument ignores the exercise of postulating two extreme hypothetical laws for the purpose of examining and comparing their differences.
grouch:
Au contraire. It ignores nothing. My argument merely reminds you that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades.
Au contraire. It ignores nothing. My argument merely reminds you that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades.
Speaking of strawmen:
"The only place I disagree with RMS is that if he could "write the rules", it would be illegal to release code that was not Libre."
Since when? I don't recall RMS ever even hinting that he would do such a thing, if somehow he could. You gored your own cow, I'm afraid.
"The only place I disagree with RMS is that if he could "write the rules", it would be illegal to release code that was not Libre."
Since when? I don't recall RMS ever even hinting that he would do such a thing, if somehow he could. You gored your own cow, I'm afraid.
dinotrac:
That was the point, to compare the two extremes to see if there was a difference between a hypothetical law against non-free software and a hypothetical law against free software. You ignored the original hypothesis put forth by Bob_Robertson. It's not about the real world as it is now; it's about an imagined world wherein RMS creates a law banning the release of non-free software versus an imagined world in which MS creates a law banning free software.
Each extreme ignores the special circumstances imposed by the real world. If you reintroduce that "multitude of shades" then you eliminate considering either extreme to determine if those extremes are qualitatively different.
Neither extreme considers edge cases. They are "black and white". This is what you ignored in considering your hypothetical effect of "IP" on software supply. That's an entirely different problem, not considered by either extreme.
Free (libre) software is the focus of both extremes. This is defined by the 4 freedoms: 0. The ability to run the program for any purpose. 1. The ability to study the program and adapt it. 2. The ability to redistribute the program. 3. The ability to improve the program and distribute the improvements.
One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms.
The other bans the use of software that allows a user those four freedoms.
Sure, extremes tend to be ridiculous, but, since laws are presumably created for the betterment of society, are those two extremes different in their likelihood of making society better?
That was the point, to compare the two extremes to see if there was a difference between a hypothetical law against non-free software and a hypothetical law against free software. You ignored the original hypothesis put forth by Bob_Robertson. It's not about the real world as it is now; it's about an imagined world wherein RMS creates a law banning the release of non-free software versus an imagined world in which MS creates a law banning free software.
Each extreme ignores the special circumstances imposed by the real world. If you reintroduce that "multitude of shades" then you eliminate considering either extreme to determine if those extremes are qualitatively different.
Neither extreme considers edge cases. They are "black and white". This is what you ignored in considering your hypothetical effect of "IP" on software supply. That's an entirely different problem, not considered by either extreme.
Free (libre) software is the focus of both extremes. This is defined by the 4 freedoms: 0. The ability to run the program for any purpose. 1. The ability to study the program and adapt it. 2. The ability to redistribute the program. 3. The ability to improve the program and distribute the improvements.
One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms.
The other bans the use of software that allows a user those four freedoms.
Sure, extremes tend to be ridiculous, but, since laws are presumably created for the betterment of society, are those two extremes different in their likelihood of making society better?
Dino:
Pardon me for a moment, but that phrase just triggered a pet peeve of mine.
> that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades.
Well, first (speaking primarily of legal, political, and philosophical subjects here), things which are often considered a shade of grey devolve to either black or white very quickly under the right conditions. The trick is determining those conditions which illustrate their true nature. So while the world may have a multitude of shades, the spectrum of true shades is much more limited than it appears.
Secondly, the world is actually composed of a multitude of colors, not shades, which only map to a more limited range of shades when view in monochorme.
So, the world is both simpler and far more complex than your statement would indicate. :)
Pardon me for a moment, but that phrase just triggered a pet peeve of mine.
> that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades.
Well, first (speaking primarily of legal, political, and philosophical subjects here), things which are often considered a shade of grey devolve to either black or white very quickly under the right conditions. The trick is determining those conditions which illustrate their true nature. So while the world may have a multitude of shades, the spectrum of true shades is much more limited than it appears.
Secondly, the world is actually composed of a multitude of colors, not shades, which only map to a more limited range of shades when view in monochorme.
So, the world is both simpler and far more complex than your statement would indicate. :)
jdixon:
touche.
touche.
The law rarely sees things in color.
grouch:
>One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms.
Perhaps it's merely the characterization to which I object. None of the four freedoms applies to code that does not exist. Proprietary code depends on the availability of IP protection to exist. To me, it is utterly ambiguous as to whether proprietary code affects freedom one whit. The question is whether it prevents the creation of free software that otherwise would exist, and to what extent.
>One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms.
Perhaps it's merely the characterization to which I object. None of the four freedoms applies to code that does not exist. Proprietary code depends on the availability of IP protection to exist. To me, it is utterly ambiguous as to whether proprietary code affects freedom one whit. The question is whether it prevents the creation of free software that otherwise would exist, and to what extent.
tuxchick2: >"I don't recall RMS ever even hinting that he would do such a thing, if somehow he could."
The closest reference I could find to RMS stating he would outlaw non-free software if he could is from an interview on pigdog.org. I couldn't find a date, but using wget --timestamping to grab one of the photos shows a date of Feb 26, 1999.
[BEGIN long quote:]
MB: But how would you respond to someone who say, "That's a, that's a very socialist viewpoint, that we all have this software, that we share it together..."
RS: No, it's not.
MB: "We give it to each other, to each according to his needs..."
RS: Yes, but it's not socialist or Communist because those have to do with centralized ownership of things. We're not talking about centralized anything. It's about individual freedom.
We have a paradoxical situation where one particular area of business, it's not business in general, it's one line of business, uses a particular business practice that's based on subjugating the public, based on dividing and conquering. Well, when there's a business practice that conflicts with an important value like freedom and community, prohibit it.
MB: [surprised] "Prohibit" is a strong word.
RS: Absolutely. When people made paper by dumping poison in the river, what did, that was, hurting the community.
MB: Ah. *That's* prohibited.
RS: So we prohibited it. Now, it's not that there's anything wrong with making paper, or we didn't prohibit business, we didn't prohibit making paper, we prohibited dumping poison in the river.
Now, I'm concerned with the poisoning of a resource that is not physical, but is even more important than most of the physical resources we care about. And that is the goodwill of the community. The will to help your neighbor.
When people were told, "If you share with your neighbor, you're a pirate," that is attacking this resource directly. You shouldn't tolerate that.
Now, as it happens, for the most part, people doing this base it on the support of the government. There's explicit government intervention to help them subjugate and divide people. It's very easy to stop it. Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users.
[END long quote]. http://www.pigdog.org/interviews/stallman/interview_with_sta...
The closest reference I could find to RMS stating he would outlaw non-free software if he could is from an interview on pigdog.org. I couldn't find a date, but using wget --timestamping to grab one of the photos shows a date of Feb 26, 1999.
[BEGIN long quote:]
MB: But how would you respond to someone who say, "That's a, that's a very socialist viewpoint, that we all have this software, that we share it together..."
RS: No, it's not.
MB: "We give it to each other, to each according to his needs..."
RS: Yes, but it's not socialist or Communist because those have to do with centralized ownership of things. We're not talking about centralized anything. It's about individual freedom.
We have a paradoxical situation where one particular area of business, it's not business in general, it's one line of business, uses a particular business practice that's based on subjugating the public, based on dividing and conquering. Well, when there's a business practice that conflicts with an important value like freedom and community, prohibit it.
MB: [surprised] "Prohibit" is a strong word.
RS: Absolutely. When people made paper by dumping poison in the river, what did, that was, hurting the community.
MB: Ah. *That's* prohibited.
RS: So we prohibited it. Now, it's not that there's anything wrong with making paper, or we didn't prohibit business, we didn't prohibit making paper, we prohibited dumping poison in the river.
Now, I'm concerned with the poisoning of a resource that is not physical, but is even more important than most of the physical resources we care about. And that is the goodwill of the community. The will to help your neighbor.
When people were told, "If you share with your neighbor, you're a pirate," that is attacking this resource directly. You shouldn't tolerate that.
Now, as it happens, for the most part, people doing this base it on the support of the government. There's explicit government intervention to help them subjugate and divide people. It's very easy to stop it. Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users.
[END long quote]. http://www.pigdog.org/interviews/stallman/interview_with_sta...
Thanks, Grouch, that does seem to be the text that I read as well. It was a while ago, and my memory has never been good for exact wordings.
JimF, that's it exactly. Either it is legal, or it is not. There is a grey area, the field between that which is required and that which is prohibitted.
My personal bias is merely to make that grey area as wide as possible. I therefore eschew both prohibition and requirement.
JimF, that's it exactly. Either it is legal, or it is not. There is a grey area, the field between that which is required and that which is prohibitted.
My personal bias is merely to make that grey area as wide as possible. I therefore eschew both prohibition and requirement.
dinotrac: >"Proprietary code depends on the availability of IP protection to exist."
[Deliberately taken out of context.]
Linux is proprietary, BTW, as are all free software programs, including GPL, BSD, Mozilla, etc. All free software depends on copyright law to protect it in the manner in which the owners want it protected.
The existence of copyright law or patent law or trademark law is irrelevant to my disagreement with Bob_Robertson over whether the two fantasy laws are different. It seems, however, that each of us was basing the comparison on a more extreme law than RMS talked about back in 1999.
RMS >"Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users."
That's slightly different than what we were considering, before. The way that governments help software owners divide users is by way of enforcing those various "IP" laws, specifically, copyright and software patents. In order for one user to help another user with closed software copyright law and patent law would have to allow the copying and distribution of that software. That is the effect of "copyleft", so the GPL is slowly achieving that goal.
Microsoft is still attempting to get laws and regulations to at least curtail free software. The recent ban by the U.S. government on Lenovo hardware, even though it is manufactured in the same facilities and with the same people as before being sold by IBM, is too close to Microsoft's fight to stop PCs shipping without MS Windows to be a coincidence.
[Deliberately taken out of context.]
Linux is proprietary, BTW, as are all free software programs, including GPL, BSD, Mozilla, etc. All free software depends on copyright law to protect it in the manner in which the owners want it protected.
The existence of copyright law or patent law or trademark law is irrelevant to my disagreement with Bob_Robertson over whether the two fantasy laws are different. It seems, however, that each of us was basing the comparison on a more extreme law than RMS talked about back in 1999.
RMS >"Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users."
That's slightly different than what we were considering, before. The way that governments help software owners divide users is by way of enforcing those various "IP" laws, specifically, copyright and software patents. In order for one user to help another user with closed software copyright law and patent law would have to allow the copying and distribution of that software. That is the effect of "copyleft", so the GPL is slowly achieving that goal.
Microsoft is still attempting to get laws and regulations to at least curtail free software. The recent ban by the U.S. government on Lenovo hardware, even though it is manufactured in the same facilities and with the same people as before being sold by IBM, is too close to Microsoft's fight to stop PCs shipping without MS Windows to be a coincidence.
Dino:
> Your argument ignores the effect of eliminating IP protection will have on the supply of software. It is anti-social to deprive society of useful programs that people wish to use simply because other programmers can't play around with the code.
Pardon my coming late to this part of the discussion. I would like to know what your basis is for such a statement. Are you saying that, if non-free software were outlawed, there would be no software? How would the elimination of non-free software eliminate the supply of software? Just because it isn't non-free doesn't mean it won't exist.
(1) The modern FOSS movement is demonstrable proof that society would not be deprived of useful programs.
(2) The prohibition of non-free licenses does not necessarily equate to the elimination of copyright or patents. Patents would still exist for some things, just not software. Copyright would still be needed, and could even be used to enforce the prohibition of non-free software.
(3) Businesses would simply be forced to find new ways of distributing software without prohibiting sharing. A number of businesses are working in that direction already. While the appeal to higher values is noble, many people currently shrug off the higher values as impractical. To borrow from Stallman's example above, I'm sure the paper mills thought it unrealistic to make paper without poisoning the water.
(4) If I understand correctly, Stallman doesn't believe in "intellectual property". I believe copyrights and patents can be useful tools, but I don't share the extreme view of the RIAA, that copyrights (or patents) should be permanent.
Note: I have never thought of taking things so far as Stallman, so I haven't given this a great deal of thought.
Pardon my coming late to this part of the discussion. I would like to know what your basis is for such a statement. Are you saying that, if non-free software were outlawed, there would be no software? How would the elimination of non-free software eliminate the supply of software? Just because it isn't non-free doesn't mean it won't exist.
(1) The modern FOSS movement is demonstrable proof that society would not be deprived of useful programs.
(2) The prohibition of non-free licenses does not necessarily equate to the elimination of copyright or patents. Patents would still exist for some things, just not software. Copyright would still be needed, and could even be used to enforce the prohibition of non-free software.
(3) Businesses would simply be forced to find new ways of distributing software without prohibiting sharing. A number of businesses are working in that direction already. While the appeal to higher values is noble, many people currently shrug off the higher values as impractical. To borrow from Stallman's example above, I'm sure the paper mills thought it unrealistic to make paper without poisoning the water.
(4) If I understand correctly, Stallman doesn't believe in "intellectual property". I believe copyrights and patents can be useful tools, but I don't share the extreme view of the RIAA, that copyrights (or patents) should be permanent.
Note: I have never thought of taking things so far as Stallman, so I haven't given this a great deal of thought.
Grouch, certainly the present indefinite copyright duration, and the mess of "software" and "business practice" patents, is forcing things to come to a head. Were copyright of truly limited duration, and patents only for physical objects, there would likely be nothing to argue about except principles.
I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves. The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States.
What will things look like without artificial monopoly grants? I don't know. Maybe "trademark" will remain something that can be legally protected, like no one opening an McDonald's restaurant and utilizing McDonald's(tm, reg us pat off) Restaurant's good name.
I expect that would still be possible. Linux by Linus Torvalds, The Real Linux, Microsoft Windows, etc etc etc. Personally, I'd love to find out.
I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves. The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States.
What will things look like without artificial monopoly grants? I don't know. Maybe "trademark" will remain something that can be legally protected, like no one opening an McDonald's restaurant and utilizing McDonald's(tm, reg us pat off) Restaurant's good name.
I expect that would still be possible. Linux by Linus Torvalds, The Real Linux, Microsoft Windows, etc etc etc. Personally, I'd love to find out.
dcparris: >'(4) If I understand correctly, Stallman doesn't believe in "intellectual property".'
It's the term "intellectual property" that he strongly objects to because of the great differences in the various forms. Specialist lawyers use the term without confusion, but the propagandists of, for example, Microsoft and the MAFIAA, use the term to confuse the layman.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
I don't have a link handy, but Stallman has stated that he supports trademarks and trademark law as reasonable. IIRC, he made supportive comments along those lines when Red Hat first moved to get cheap-CD distributors to remove the Red Hat name and logo from those CDs.
Bob_Robertson: >'The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States.'
Absolutely! That pile of Post-It [tm, whatever] notes stuck all over your monitor, your walls, and cascading onto the floor are copyright protected for 70 years after your death. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Doma...
It's the term "intellectual property" that he strongly objects to because of the great differences in the various forms. Specialist lawyers use the term without confusion, but the propagandists of, for example, Microsoft and the MAFIAA, use the term to confuse the layman.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
I don't have a link handy, but Stallman has stated that he supports trademarks and trademark law as reasonable. IIRC, he made supportive comments along those lines when Red Hat first moved to get cheap-CD distributors to remove the Red Hat name and logo from those CDs.
Bob_Robertson: >'The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States.'
Absolutely! That pile of Post-It [tm, whatever] notes stuck all over your monitor, your walls, and cascading onto the floor are copyright protected for 70 years after your death. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Doma...
Grouch: Stallman has been supportive of Red Hat's use of trademark. He stated something along the lines of trademarks becoming more important. I also don't think he opposes Copyright - only the way in which it is being (mis)used. You are also correct about his opposition to the *term* "intellectual property".
I can support what the Creative Commons refers to as "Founders' Copyright". I even support much of the Creative Commons' ideas for licensing content (another loaded term, as far as RMS is concerned). Unfortunately, I think Lessig has suggested some form of DRM is a good thing, or something along those lines. I stand to be corrected on that assertion though.
Bob: >I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves.
Will that throw us back to the days that led up to the Statute of Queen Ann (where publishers fought tooth and nail to prevent re-publishing of books - effectively for pertpetual copyright)?
Frankly, I cannot help but wonder if the effort to enforce such rights will be akin to enforcing drug laws - unmanagable. And don't get me started on the notion of criminalizing the act of sharing. But I do question the goal of eliminating copyright and patents altogether.
I can support what the Creative Commons refers to as "Founders' Copyright". I even support much of the Creative Commons' ideas for licensing content (another loaded term, as far as RMS is concerned). Unfortunately, I think Lessig has suggested some form of DRM is a good thing, or something along those lines. I stand to be corrected on that assertion though.
Bob: >I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves.
Will that throw us back to the days that led up to the Statute of Queen Ann (where publishers fought tooth and nail to prevent re-publishing of books - effectively for pertpetual copyright)?
Frankly, I cannot help but wonder if the effort to enforce such rights will be akin to enforcing drug laws - unmanagable. And don't get me started on the notion of criminalizing the act of sharing. But I do question the goal of eliminating copyright and patents altogether.
Rev -
The real bite is not IP so much as its perversion.
The concept of time and scope limited monopolies is not a bad one.
The original idea -- lost somewhere along the way -- was to add more things to the public domain. Patents are the alternative to trade secrets. Drugs are both a great and bad example. The best drugs go generic when their patents expire. New drugs cost an arm and a leg, and drug companies do everything they can to get doctors to prescribe new drugs, even when old ones are more effective.
So long as it costs a fortune to develop new drugs, something that serves the purpose of patents is needed.
The real bite is not IP so much as its perversion.
The concept of time and scope limited monopolies is not a bad one.
The original idea -- lost somewhere along the way -- was to add more things to the public domain. Patents are the alternative to trade secrets. Drugs are both a great and bad example. The best drugs go generic when their patents expire. New drugs cost an arm and a leg, and drug companies do everything they can to get doctors to prescribe new drugs, even when old ones are more effective.
So long as it costs a fortune to develop new drugs, something that serves the purpose of patents is needed.
DC, no, the "statute of queen ann" if I read that correctly, I've not heard of it before, is what we have _now_. To paraphrase, "The Mouse Will Never Go Public Domain".
Copyright and patent are just government grants of monopoly. The wording, "for a limited time", was a rationalization that I believe didn't work out in the long run. Once government had such a power, those who wish to profit by wielding that power go shopping and the result is the absurdities we have now.
Certainly the problem of books never being published again would not happen. Even now, I am reading a perfectly modern copy of Homer's _The Iliad_. And I know without doubt that he didn't give permission for the reprint.
Fan-subtitled anime is a good example. When a good title is not available in a particular language, fans will translate and subtitle. When legal copies are available, those that would have bought them do so in order to support future production. No, of course there are leaches who take and take, but they would not have paid in the first place either. I've got a $400 laser-disk copy of _Kimagure Orange Road_ for which I do not even own a player. DVDs happened while I wasn't looking. :^)
When Tolkien asked those distributing an un-authorized version of his _Lord of the Rings_ (since it hadn't been available in America yet) to stop because the authorized version was on its way, they did. I believe that such efforts of reputation and honesty will suffice for "authors and inventors to profit by their labors". Just not in perpetuity, assured by government monopoly.
Copyright and patent are just government grants of monopoly. The wording, "for a limited time", was a rationalization that I believe didn't work out in the long run. Once government had such a power, those who wish to profit by wielding that power go shopping and the result is the absurdities we have now.
Certainly the problem of books never being published again would not happen. Even now, I am reading a perfectly modern copy of Homer's _The Iliad_. And I know without doubt that he didn't give permission for the reprint.
Fan-subtitled anime is a good example. When a good title is not available in a particular language, fans will translate and subtitle. When legal copies are available, those that would have bought them do so in order to support future production. No, of course there are leaches who take and take, but they would not have paid in the first place either. I've got a $400 laser-disk copy of _Kimagure Orange Road_ for which I do not even own a player. DVDs happened while I wasn't looking. :^)
When Tolkien asked those distributing an un-authorized version of his _Lord of the Rings_ (since it hadn't been available in America yet) to stop because the authorized version was on its way, they did. I believe that such efforts of reputation and honesty will suffice for "authors and inventors to profit by their labors". Just not in perpetuity, assured by government monopoly.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Ah, but there is a difference. It's not just because he doesn't like it. It's because it is harmful to individuals and communities. It is anti-social.
Writing code that is not libre is not anti-social. Releasing that code makes it so because at that point you demand that people cease helping each other just to maintain the secrecy of the code and your control over those who use that code.
You use Microsoft getting a law passed against libre software as an example. Actually, Microsoft includes a prohibition against the use of libre software in certain EULAs. This is a demand that you give up freedom. This is completely different than a law demanding that your freedom cannot be taken away.
On the one hand, the hypothetical law against releasing code that is not libre would be a law against enticing people to be anti-social. On the other hand, the hypothetical law against libre software would be a law against permitting people to be pro-social.