Dudeness, it's been a while. :D
JM Ibanez wrote:
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:
<snipped, but read through it nonetheless... />
We are talking about copyright, not patents right?
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>
So when I say I have the copyright to my work, but put a GPL on it nonetheless, what happens? You don't need permission from me to modify it because of the license. But you can't claim that the software is yours either because I have the copyright to my work. Your changes maybe copyright to you, but not the whole thing. It sounds confusing, but it's how I understand it.
So if I did a cover of metallica's "unforgiven II" but did a jazz fusion version (all from scratch, or oujido) does that make me a pirate? If I sing their song in public, is that piracy? :D If I make illegal copies of their CD and sell it, then maybe that'll be piracy.
Plaigerism -- taking for your own what other people have written without proper citation -- is much like piracy. If I claim that I wrote some phrase which I read somewhere, then that'll be plaigerism -- right? If I so happen as not to read something somewhere, but they sound the same, contesting that I wrote it is another matter.
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!
So you mean Nike shouldn't fight the non-Nike affiliated shoe makers that sell shoes with the Nike brand but with no profits going to Nike? Reebok? Florsheim (hope I spelled that correctly)? Rockport? Guess?
See, it's more like "Only I can use my name... What's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours. You can compete with me, but make sure that you use your own brand." :D
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.
This is about copyright no? That, and a patent to something is different, ne?
The license/EULA *is basically enforceable only under copyright law*, IIRC. IANAL, of course.
Which is legal. :D
I'm not going to argue, since I personally don't want to deal with a EULA anyway.
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.
But pirates don't pay the artists -- they don't pay the executives who make the music industry an industry. Pirates steal the product, and make profit of stolen goods.
I don't like how the market works either, but that's no justification for piracy. You can't afford the product? Then I'm sorry, deal with it.
It's not contract, my friend -- it's copyright licensing. It is only as binding as copyright can make it binding.
Which is nonetheless legally binding. :D
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. :)
Well taken. But for my part though, I still see no justification for piracy -- illegal or otherwise. More like: "Do to others what you want others do to you." ;)
-- Dean Michael Berris ymid: mikhailberis [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#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
