On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:57:53 +0800, Dean Michael C. Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla wrote: > > It isn't a question of fairness. The public wants there to be a lot of > > good music to listen to, and also it wants this music to be available at > > minimal cost. So the government institutes a system of copyright for > > music, that says that for a limited time the musician can have exclusive > > use of his creations so that he can find a way to make money off his > > creations by restricting their use only to those who can pay him a > > license for their use. > > The government is at fault then? Yes, let's just blame the government > because PEOPLE rip the musicians off by making illegal copies of the > music musicians create. The public should be responsible enough to > recognize that there are laws by which we agree to abide by when we > pledge allegiance to the country. The public should also be respectful > -- as humans -- to fellow humans in common courtesy, which is basically > in terms of fairness. > > If it's not a question about fairness, then I don't know what piracy and > copyright is all about then.
> > Wrong. It is because the government, whose mandate is to protect the > > public interest, has deemed it more beneficial for the public to yield > > some of its liberties (remember that copyright is inherently a > > restriction on freedom of speech) in order that the company may add > > value to the economy by creating their copyrightable works. > > > > Copyright is more just like your deed to property -- what is yours is > yours, and shall be the owner UNTIL you 'consciously yield' your rights > to that property. My copyright on Free Software I write does not > restrict you from copying the source code and modifying it -- but you > may not take the rights to the software as owner of the copyright to the > software. Only in the event that I yield my copyright to the software to > you may you claim that the software I wrote is yours (or technically > copyrighted to you). This is a common misconception. Copyright is only related to property only artificially (i.e. because of a pronouncement of law). A good read concerning this is Professor Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture"[1]. I suggest that people read it first. :) A key paragraph from the book: <quote> There's no doubt that "piracy" is wrong, and that pirates should be punished. But before we summon the executioners, we should put this notion of "piracy" in some context. For as the concept is increasingly used, at its core is an extraordinary idea that is almost certainly wrong. The idea goes something like this: Creative work has value; whenever I use, or take, or build upon the creative work of others, I am taking from them something of value. Whenever I take something of value from someone else, I should have their permission. The taking of something of value from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of piracy. This idea is certainly a possible understanding of how creative property should work. It might well be a possible design for a system of law protecting creative property. But the "if value, then right" theory of creative property has never been America's theory of creative property. It has never taken hold within our law. Instead, in our tradition, intellectual property is an instrument. It sets the groundwork for a richly creative society but remains subservient to the value of creativity. The current debate has this turned around. We have become so concerned with protecting the instrument that we are losing sight of the value. The source of this confusion is a distinction that the law no longer takes care to drawâthe distinction between republishing someone's work on the one hand and building upon or transforming that work on the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern; copyright law today regulates both. Before the technologies of the Internet, this conflation didn't matter all that much. The technologies of publishing were expensive; that meant the vast majority of publishing was commercial. Commercial entities could bear the burden of the lawâeven the burden of the Byzantine complexity that copyright law has become. It was just one more expense of doing business. </quote> (Apropos of nothing: In fact, before the current extent of copyright law, Mickey Mouse's first "film" was simply a "rip-off" of Buster Keaton's last independently produced silent film, "Steamboat Bill, Jr.".) > I don't see how copyright in itself is a restriction on the freedom of > speech. Maybe an NDA is a restriction on the freedom of speech, which > when notarized is considered a legal binding document -- but when we > sign or agree to it, it goes into full effect anyway. > Think of it this way: copyright effectively limits what I can do with your IP work. For example, current copyright laws in essence prohibit me from doing remixes without your permission, or even using samples (which, IIRC, was contested in the 80s) and producing new work. I can't quote passages without worrying whether or not I am "infringing" on your copyright. It limits my creativity, and therefore it also limits my freedom of speech.</opinion> > > It is not really wrong in the moral sense. Only wrong in the sense of > > illegal. Malo in prohibido is the legal term. The real problem with > > unauthorized copying is that it removes part of the incentive for people > > to create useful content, and that is in many cases a bad thing. > > Piracy -- the concept -- in my view is still wrong. And I'm not just > talking about software piracy. Piracy ~ theft. See the cheap immitations > of the branded shoes being sold here the Philippines made from some > neighboring southeast asian countries -- that's piracy in effect. Think > about it, someone using your "design" and not doing a very good job at > copying -- and even putting your brand on it -- and selling it for at > MOST 50% of your original price on the market. What's worse, is that the > sale does not benefit you monetarily. This is a monopolist view of the business market. It, in essence, says -- hey, I'm the only one who can do that! I'm supposed to be able to charge you outrageously high prices, and be protected from competition! In fact, the original intent of copyrights (and patents, mind you) was to *limit* the extent of the "ownership" of the copyright holder, so as to give him a head start in the market. However, after that, it should have been given to the public to further fuel creativity and to foster competition (thereby driving prices down). Sadly, that isn't the case today what with (in the US, for example) the Bono extensions to copyright. > I agree with your point about killing the incentive to be creative when > making unauthorized copy. Even then, today's copyright is also slowly killing the incentive to be creative. Hence, we have the Creative Commons License and other similar licenses. > > What license? I was not given a license for the software in the first > > place, much less agreed to any, meaning I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COPY > > IT AT ALL. I am therefore in violation of copyright law. > > > > > > Let me rephrase: Now is copying and proliferating/selling an installer > [whose copy you bought and essentially have in posession a license > regarding the use of the software installer in question] or a piece of > software [you did not create and have no ownership of] piracy? ... The license/EULA *is basically enforceable only under copyright law*, IIRC. IANAL, of course. > > It is not taking for my own and having my way with something that isn't > > mine, nevertheless. More of the IP propaganda at work here. I am > > violating laws that a government created in order to motivate the > > person/organization which was behind the act of creation to keep doing > > what they are doing, which is bad enough, but that is hardly theft as > > you imply. Chances are, I would never have gotten the installer at all > > and done without it instead had it not been made available as cheaply as > > it had been from the illicit channels. > > > > So you're now saying making proprietary software is 'bad'? > > I love the idea behind free/open source software. I love the concept and > I believe that it's very very humane. It's brilliant. However, I do not > see it as "good" as opposed to proprietary software as "bad" -- I do > think that the idea [FOSS] is better as opposed to proprietary software. > Think of it this way: there wouldn't be a market for pirated music if not for the outrageous prices of CDs sold in white markets. Think of how much the costs are, etc. compared to the actual retail price. Think: if the CDs were priced at, say, PhP 125.00 instead of PhP 300 or even PhP 500 (as most CDs are), would you buy it? Most people will, in fact, if the price were lowered reasonably. > > I am not in breach of any contract. I never signed any contract. Since > > I wasn't granted a license by the copyright holder, what I have done is > > violate copyright law, and am liable for criminal penalties under it. > > Posession of a 'legally obtained' software installer media such as CD's, > floppy disks, compressed installers, among others and agreeing > consciously to a license agreement binds you to a legal contract. > Pressing an "I Agree" button during the installation of a piece of > software such as Windows binds you to a legal contract between you (the > end user) and Microsoft who has a copyright on the software you just > agreed to use. It's not contract, my friend -- it's copyright licensing. It is only as binding as copyright can make it binding. > So you mean saying that piracy is wrong is an effect of swallowing the > IP propaganda pill? If that's so, then I might just have swallowed the > pill. But I stand by my statement and belief that piracy is wrong. > Illegal or otherwise, it shouldn't be done UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. The issue of "piracy" isn't a black-and-white issue -- it is more of a shades of gray thing. There are many nuances and complexities, and we shouldn't give judgement and say it is "completely wrong" or "completely right". Understand the nuances first, then give a judgement on a case-to-case basis. :) -- JM Ibanez -- A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. -- Bertrand Russell ----- http://www.livejournal.com/~jmibanez/ http://www.mycgiserver.com/~butiki/ -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.q-linux.com (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
