On 05/09/10 18:24, Stephen Hansen wrote:
<cut>
Wait, what? Why shouldn't I profit repeatedly from the "same work
already done"? *I* created, its *mine*. I put blood, sweat and tears
into it and perhaps huge amounts of resources, risking financial
security and sanity, and you're arguing I shouldn't have the right to
sell it after its done?
Of course, but what do you do if you find out that your potential
customer already has your software without paying you?
Exactly how do you imagine I'm going to make money off of it? How the
existing system works is that I sell... multiple copies of it. Maybe
hundreds or thousands before that investment is recouped. At that
point, do I no longer get to sell multiple copies? Or do I have to
find someone to retroactively pay me some kind of salary? What does
"pay for work" even mean?
As a simple developer I do not think my craft is more special than any
other craft like carpentry, masonry, plumbing, electrician etc.
And as I see how other crafts get paid I think is reasonable for my
craft too, I am either employed and paid by the hour or take more risks
and do projects, commissions, etc. etc.
Of course if I would be in the construction business and I build a house
I can either sell it or let it, but then I do take the risk that the
occupant uses my work beyond what I expected and eventually end up with
a huge repair costs.
I am sure you can imagine the rest of my comparison arguments between
construction and software development.
What's wrong with software copyrights? Don't lump intellectual
property issues together, they're not comparable. Copyrights have
nothing at all to do with patents which have nothing at all to do with
trademarks. Each is a very different set of law.
Very true and in my opinion they all share the same trait, although they
are once made to make sure the original author gets credit and profit
for his/her work they are primarily used now to profit beyond
reasonableness and actually encumber future development and good use,
IMHO they actually hinder the intellectual development of the human race.
Sure, there's some nutty corner cases in copyrights, which need to be
addressed-- including things like fair use and DRM. But on the whole,
copyrights aren't really all that broken. Its nothing like the
situation with software patents, which are just sort of crazy.
Okay so what do you actually do if you find out that in another country,
which do not share the same legislation (about the other 80% of the
population) brakes your copyright or does not uphold the patent
restrictions?
If your big like Microsoft you might try to convince that particular
government that their citizens should pay you, otherwise good luck (even
for Microsoft as they seem to fail more often than succeed in that notion).
They are broken because by definition restrictions need enforcement to
uphold them, if there is no enforcement it will not work. Perhaps a
better solution would be to find a way that does not need any
enforcement (or limited amount of it), say like the economy worked prior
to patents and copyrights minus kings and tyrants.
For those who say it can't be done, sure it can, all you have to
do is nothing, it takes effort to enforce policies.
And an entire industry ceases to exist overnight, with countless new
homeless people showing up on the streets.
I have the opposite opinion but neither of us have given any facts or
proven research papers on this so shall we call this quits?
You can believe in the Free Software movement (I'm not saying you do,
this 'you' is impersonal and metaphorical)-- and if you do, good for
you. You can believe in "morality" with regards to "freedom" and the
"essential rights" of the users. I find it all nonsensical. But good
for you if you believe in it. But the Free Software movement exists
*because* of copyrights. Copyright Law is what makes the GPL even
possible.
<cut>
I don't believe in a system which is based on enforcing rules and where
breaking of this rule at most results in a hypothetical loss of income.
Some enforced rules are of course necessary, like not going on a
pillage/killing/raping spree (except of course if this is your job but
then your still governed by the rules of Geneva -- yeah I know bold
military statement, but I have been there too, the military that is). I
rather like to find a way where minimal rule enforcing is necessary to
make a living.
But I fail to see what's fundamentally wrong with that system.
I hope I have further explained my point of view and hope that you agree
with me at least from my perspective, I do understand though that your
point of view is perfectly valid and reasonable. It is just that I am a
sucker for seeking alternative ways to improve systems even if they only
show small amounts of defects. So you could argue that I have my sight
set for an Utopia while you rather remain in the reality, if you can
find yourself with this than at least we can agree on that :-)
--
mph
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
