Sigh...I would venture to guess this is what AMS had in mind while requesting [actually, demanding] that this thread be discontinued. The debate has already ventured into the territory of loud and fanatic shouting based on assumptions that-you-know-better-than-I-what society-needs and what-is-the-philosophical-reasoning-behind-Linux.
I guess I am to blame as anyone else for that, by replying to a thread where almost no one seems to have done their basic research, including I. And it get's worse - I am going to reply to this mail.
For anyone with legal/philosophical expertise, please forgive me - Mea about to Culpa and produce quasi-legal, quasi-philosophical ramblings.
Varun Varma wrote:
If anyone feels strongly about changing copyright and/or IP laws, please file PILs or petitions to your local political representatives or relevant judicial review panels.
What is going on here is just the first step of such a thing. You cant just go ahead and file a petition without having a public debate over it.
By deleting what followed below, you have taken the above quote out of context. I am not suggesting that a public debate should not happen - in fact I am contributing to one.
Yes, this might not be the perfect forum for it - but again, let us not forget what this forum (ILUGD) is about - it is not just technology it is also the philosophy.
Umm...I never said that it should not be discussed here. On the contrary, I quite believe that it should - why else would I post to this thread, *not* demanding that it be discontinued?
What you have just said above, and in the next 3 paragraphs would have been better suited as a reply to AMS's mail and I am going to refrain from commenting on quite a few things which I don't agree with at all...
To all those who say we stick to linux in all our talks here - well, you are right and wrong. Right, because this particular list has probably(some say mistakenly) given the impression that it is a strictly technical one. But wrong, if you say it should stay that way.
I cant say this emphatically enough - ILUGD is not just about how to use Linux, it is also about how we sustain the techno-social environment in which Linux and the GNU movement came about in the first place. So subscribers of this list who are into Linux solely for technology or commercial benefits might sometime see discussions which might not bring direct technical or commercial benefits to them.
The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is unfortunately a catch-all for all discussions. There should ideally be a separate list for those interested in discussing freedom and other philosophical reasons on the line of LIG. But that might not be a good idea because:
a. The traffic might not be good enough to merit a separate list.
b. Most importantly, Linux users need to be made aware of larger issues. Linux is not just about software-for-free, it is also about software-that-should-be-setting-you-free. This is not a cliche - if you dont believe in this, you are not much different from a freeloader. That is why these discussions(in moderation) do have a place here.
> P.S.: Sanjee, the unfortunate thing in all of this is that you and I > may be seen as the Devil's Advocates for suggesting that laws should > be respected.
Uhh...considering that 8 paragraphs follow my P.S., I think what exactly what I said in the P.S. is coming true...getting castigated for suggesting the legal procedure be followed.
Just for fun, I am going to point out the logical fallacies committed in the reasoning below. Finding out exactly what they mean is left as an excercise to the reader...
Nobody is saying that laws should not be respected - if that had been the case, the discussion here would have been about how to bypass the ban and spread the software as much as possible.
[non causa pro causa]
Laws are not written in stone - they change over time.
Yes they do. But how? The point I am trying to make again and again is that there is a well established system for changing laws, and I am suggesting that be followed.
For too long have Indian commercial laws like copyright laws not been subject to public scrutiny. Copyright laws the world over is going through a spate of public debates - they are being rewritten and re-interpreted. It is time that Indian laws reflect this world trend.
[Ignoratio Elenti]
The above statement has no bearing on the point at hand - a law has been broken, and that should not be supported.
If private enterprise ran solely on the basis of - Dont-like-it-then-dont-buy-it, then life would be a living hell. If you own a hotel, could you just put up a sign saying "Only people of so-called upper castes may enter" ?. The answer is you cant. Because there is a limit to which private enterprise may dictate rules. These rules have to respect common social beliefs of equality and fairness.
[non causa pro causa]
Yes, I can't. Do you know why? Because the _LAW_ prevents me from doing so, not morals. Specifically, Article 15, Section 2.a of the Indian Constitution says [only relevant section quoted for the sake of brevity]:
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/const/p03015.html
[...edited...]
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
[...edited...]
[Note to the technically sensitive reader: Yes, I know this is not a law - for that I really should be quoting from the Indian Penal Code where this Article of the constitution get's mapped to a law. You really think I am going to spend that much time on research?]
If I were to go to a remote corner of India, where the "common social beliefs of equality or fairness" allow, in fact encourage, castism, even there castism would be illegal. It has nothing to with morals.
I hope that the difference between morals and laws and don't see them as one big chunk of "what's the right thing to do".
Laws follow from morals, but collective morals after due scrutiny. They are not made from the morals of individuals or a group of individuals.
Please understand that India, like any other democracy in the world is a republic. That means that the voice of majority is only heard till the selection of representatives, in whom you vest your power to take decisions on your behalf. Even if the decision is not what you like.
And there are remedies to correct such decisions, which include:
-> Changing representation -> Judicial procedure
And if all else fails,
-> Revolt/Revolution
The problem is that people straightaway jump to the third, without trying out the first two.
We are claiming here that our sense of equality is not being respected.
I assume that when asked to elaborate, you would be able to produce an expansion for the term "We"? I also assume that you have consent [prefreably written] from the group that you claim as "We" authorising you to make such claims on their behalf.
Or is the "We" simply for dramatic effect?
When the sole benefit of iTunes is to let you buy songs that you want,
A very one sided view of the world. The sole benefit to WHOM? You? Considered the benifit it gives to Apple, it's shareholders, the recording companies, the artists, the employees, their children and the chap who makes money by serving at McDonald's to the children of the truck driver who carries the paint to McDonald's where the children of the employees eat?
Or none of that matters? Because they are all lying, stealing, money hungry bastards and you should be deciding how much money they should make?
and I am perfectly open to buying songs to it, am I not being discriminated when Apple refuses to create a Linux port of its application because of commercial(e.g. lack of resources, lack of market, comptetition to MacOS) reasons?
[ad ignoratiam]
Perhaps you are. But:
-> Have you asked Apple to create a player for Linux?
-> Have they "refused" to do so?
-> Which legal reference are you using to decide that in case of Apple's refusal, what you should do? Or, again, are you basing it on moral judgements that you have the right...blah...blah...blah...
Consider the fact that Apple and Linux have identical market shares, and the fact that the Open Source community is willing to create the application on its own.
[ad verecumdiam]
Considered. But how does that add to this discussion in any way?
Consider the fact that there might already be dozens of windows based cracks for decrypting iTunes songs already available and that Apple is willing to take that risk and still maintain and push the Windows port of iTunes. But when it comes to Linux and other free OSes, it is not?
[Fallacy of accident]
A few wrongs don't justify another wrong.
How much of this is fair for the public good?
Please, please, please tell me that you realise that is for the law to decide. And for you to appeal to the law if you don't think it is. And for you to lead a change to the law, if the law does not agree.
This is not for you *or* the public to decide. As unpopular as that might sound, that is the way civilized socities work.
Playfair is only the first step to having iTunes on Linux. Today I read on slashdot that a software has already been developed on Linux which lets you listen to samples of iTunes songs from their server. This is another step. There will be more on the way.
Again, I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion at hand. How does that help in deciding whether the law should prevail or not?
Just remember, DRM(Windows/Apple) or no DRM (linux,*bsd)
Not really sure what you mean...Linus personally said that he is OK with DRM wrt to Linux.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105115686114064&w=2
I don't follow *BSD, so can't comment on that. Not going to take *your* word for it, though. :)
we are still philophically against acts of wilful copyright infringement. But we consider it our right to create Free software which brings us *legitimate* benefits.
[Fallacy of accident]
Legitimate by what standards? Your own? Convinient, isn't that?
It seems to me that my email got used as a template to bring out various points, which are in no way connected to the singular point I made in my email. Spefically your mail talks about:
-> How this is/isn't the proper list for discussing this. I never in my mail said/implied that it/isn't
-> How Indian copyright laws need to be changed. Where/when did I say that they shouldn't be. On the contrary, I am saying that that they *should* be, albeit through the laid down process.
-> Various conspiracy theories about why Apple does/does not create playes for different platforms. How can this possibily be related to my mail which - Guys, lets follow the law?
-> Various strategies suggested to Apple on a list which Apple does not look to for startegies. Or were they, perhaps, directed at the list readers about what Apple should do?
-> How we should create free softwares for legitimate benefits. What, in my mail, suggested that we shouldn't?
Please refrain from doing all of this in reply to a mail, which in no way was related to the points you made. Perhaps responding to different mails/composing new mails would be a better idea.
I am going to retire from this debate now, since the problem is simple - one man's hero is another man's terrorist. I believe Jon Johansen committed intellectual terrorism, and understandably, he would be hero to some people. Due to that, the debate has now gotten emotional, rather than logical, and thus I give up.
I would think that people would apply their own value judgements in this case, and not get carried away by populist rantings.
And, oh, on the whole this entire reasoning suffers from ad populum.
-- Regards, Varun Varma --------------------------------------- Mindframe Software & Services Pvt. Ltd. http://www.mindsw.com ---------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
