Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

we are dinosaurs

No replies
User offline. Last seen 11 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23

This was part of a comment to "copyright copywrong II" (blogs -> James), but it's a bit off-topic.

Discussions about what copyright should be like are dinosaur fights, really. Now everyone is able to copy anything, copyright infringements will be as difficult to fight as nosepicking (if there were a law against it Laughing ).

So, no more copyright, what will it mean? To me, it doesn't look like an improvement. Actually it looks like a big thing in the sky, it's getting bigger and bigger... Our whole "ecosystem" is built on copyright. Proprietary software uses copyright to protect itself. The GPL won't work without copyright. Who wants to free code if anyone can reuse it without even leaving your name on it? All software will be free, but as in free beer. No copyright is very bad for free(dom) software.
The most evil/rich companies will try to protect their ideas (and the ones they stole) with patents, even more than they are doing now. Innovation in some areas of software development will end or at least be MUCH slower.
And all the time we dinosaurs are fighting about what copyright should be like.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Re: we are dinosaurs

You are right PK, copyright sustains our freedom of choice and thus every model works under it. As long as it is so i don't object it except on merely a personal level of disliking all the wrong choices that it ptovides.

Copyright system can in this context be called "freedom of choice" system.

Free software movement is not against freedom of choice and is not pushing copyright system down by force. Free software movement is merely underminig it by influencing people (conviencing) about an ideology that treats choices of non-free licences as unethical and free licences as ethical. That is it!

Now, you may or may not accept that ethics has anything to do with such choice, but we still wont keep quiet about that!

I am free!
Daniel

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 12 years 28 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-09-18
Re: we are dinosaurs

Well, copyright is merely a legal framework to build software (and other, but we are focusing on software here) licenses on. It was used (or, better, hacked) by FS people to create GPL and other free licenses and it was created for proprietary companies to protect their intellectual property. Therefore, copyright is needed today both by free and non-free software and in that context copyright is not bad for free software.

But today our legal system has distorted view about information and claims that there exists such thing as intellectual property and uses copyright (and patents) to enforce the right of the creator to decide how his software can be used. Intellectual property is just a construction created to bring some (too much) money into pockets of creators. I don't want to say that creators shouldn't be compensated for their work, I am just saying that they don't own software and that selling it under restrictive, non-free licenses is a wrong way for getting compensation for their work.

Imagine a world where scientists don't publish their discoveries for everyone interested to examine and build upon, but instead distribute them along with some restrictive "licence" so that the other scientists have to buy them (and cannot share them nor build upon them). This would slow down the scientifical progress really much. Of course there would be Free Scientists who would give away and share, but that doesn't mean that this legal framework that lets non-free scientists to sell their discoveries is not bad at all. It is bad because it encourages them not to share.

So, to conclude: copyright = bad, patents = worse.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Re: we are dinosaurs
Quote:

Libervisco wrote:
Free software movement is not against freedom of choice and is not pushing copyright system down by force. Free software movement is merely underminig it by influencing people (conviencing) about an ideology that treats choices of non-free licences as unethical and free licences as ethical. That is it!

I agree, apart from the undermining. What is undermining the copyright system is copying with no respect for licenses. This will harm free software just as much as it will harm proprietary software.

Quote:

Now, you may or may not accept that ethics has anything to do with such choice, but we still wont keep quiet about that!

I took what I posted here out of my comment to James' blog because it was off-topic. Now you seem to want to go off-topic back to that topic...
There is no reason to keep quiet about the ethics & copyright discussion, apart from the fact that it is useless to discuss what way copyrights must be used to be ethically right. Why? Because copyright will cease to exist. You can't have a law against something that happens all the time. Soon copyright infringements will become so common it is practically not possible to stop them. I think that will lead to a system that all of us would agree is ethically wrong. There will be absolutely no protection of any rights of creators, except perhaps patents. As you know, I think patents are very bad.

I would like to know how likely you think it is the copyright system will collapse, and how disastrous the result will be. Also, I would like to know if you think we should be advocates of copyright, and possibly even activists.
I would like to take a step back from the "dinosaur fight" about copyright and ethics, and discuss if we (FOSS people) are "dinosaurs" who will soon become extinct, or not.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Re: we are dinosaurs
Quote:

I-am-PK wrote:
There is no reason to keep quiet about the ethics & copyright discussion, apart from the fact that it is useless to discuss what way copyrights must be used to be ethically right. Why? Because copyright will cease to exist. You can't have a law against something that happens all the time. Soon copyright infringements will become so common it is practically not possible to stop them. I think that will lead to a system that all of us would agree is ethically wrong. There will be absolutely no protection of any rights of creators, except perhaps patents. As you know, I think patents are very bad.

That is a good point, but i only don't agree that there will be no kind of pretection for authors (and thus the users). If copyright system crushes like this it will obviously crush due to it's incompatibility with the wishes of majority people, wish to share (thus the infringements on one side and FOSS on another).

If people don't like copyright and are crushing it this way, they will like a system that will allow them to copy and share, a law that wont automatically pose restrictions in this regard as copyright does. So, instead of copyright we would have some other system, copyleft style.

Note that under copyright, when author creates anything he is automatically placed under protection, and protection from "unauthorized sharing". Copyright automatically implies that this is what an author wants and in instead if author places his work under specific terms, his work will be "protected" from copying and sharing.
What if it would be the opposite, what if the system automatically said that sharing is free unless an author chooses dufferent terms. This would be a copyleft system that still leaves a choice, but put's the freedom to share as primary one.

Does this leaves authors unprotected? No, because copyleft is GPL style and it is very likely that these "automatic" terms would be terms of GPL which means that author is free to use and share source code of others, keep his work private, sell distribution services charging whatever he wishes etc. Thus, author is still prtected, but the society is primary cooperative, and those who still want it differently are free to "override" copyleft just the way that GPL overrides copyright today. You get my point? Just switch sides and you get it all working. I believe this is the best way to describe one possible goal of free software movement "anti-copyright mood". We don't force people to switch to copyleft, but people will sooner or later bring copyright down, not only by the FOSS, but by the proprietary software users themselves (due to infringements). Copyleft is the only viable replacement, and that's what we've been promoting all the time.

So, no, free software people are not dinosours, rather a time travelers that came from the future to spread an ideology that will save people's freedoms and rights so that the crush of copyright doesn't causes too much damage to the society and economy. ;-)

Thank you :-)
Daniel

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Re: we are dinosaurs

The difference between copyleft and copyright is that in copyleft restrictions by the creator are optional, and in copyright un-restrictions are optional, right? What makes you think anyone will have more respect for optional restrictions than for restrictions by default? I'm not sure if it is the majority, but many people will copy anything they want to have, without caring if it is legal or even ethical. This will make copyleft fail in exactly the same way as it will make copyright fail.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Re: we are dinosaurs

Well, from that point of view, it will fail only if most of the people still choose to override "default" copyleft by choosing proprietary terms. But in this kind of a situation where copyright is crushed by masses of people who are disobeying it it is likely that the less restrictive licences will be much more popular than today.

I mean, the whole copyright thing exists to incent people to be creators by "protecting" them and their creations. In a system where it has been shown that such "protection" simply doesn't works and that such restrictive licences will be always infringed upon, only the most stubborn ones would go about sticking with such terms, others would go and search for alternatives that wont be so dislikeing to public, and thus many may turn to the copyleft default, to the GPL-style terms.

Thx
Dan

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
Re: we are dinosaurs

I think it's very likely many creators will stick to the GPL-like defaults. The problem is that I believe many people will have just as little respect for GPL-like terms as for other terms. I think many who compose a program or text using parts from others will not take the effort to list all the original authors.
But that's just me not believing in the goodness of humanity, of course.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Re: we are dinosaurs

Well, GPL really doesn't asks that much when it comes to acknowledgments (credits) as it is enough for them to remain written in the source code. Not everyone will even read the source code, and who does, it really isn't that painful to just leave the proper credits there..:-)

As for respecting other terms i really don't see the trouble of keeping it as they are made to follow the exact "natural flow". What more freedoms would anyone want than it already has within the terms of GPL, that is, default copyleft.

Thanks
Daniel

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

monserrat's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-11-11
Re: we are dinosaurs

Liber You-are-PK,

I don't think we are dinosaurs... :nonnon:

Actually we are MAMMALS! Dinosaurs are now dominating our society. But when there is a great crisis we will be taking over the world!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing

Rijik.

User offline. Last seen 14 years 33 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-12-11
Re: we are dinosaurs

That is a good way to look at it Rijik! and i don't think we have to wait for a crisis--free software is creating one--it is a crisis for the entrenched interests that thrive on profits from owning ideas..they fight against extinction while we grow and thrive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.