Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Mark Lawrence]

On 08/06/18 18:34, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:


PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very least
one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first year, €2
for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.



Thoughts on the proposed new EU copyright laws are welcome.  Here's the 
first link https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/ of the hits from 
the results of a google search for "eu new copyright proposal".  I'll 
leave you all to read the remaining 26,199,999 hits at your leisure.


--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Rick Johnson]

Gregory Ewing wrote:

[...]

> * Charging money for copies of software is not the only way
> to make money from programming. You can charge for support
> services. You can charge for writing custom one-off
> software. There are people who make a good living from
> doing these things.

Microsoft not only demands to be paid for writing the
software *and* maintaining it, but they also demand that you
pay to have it upgraded every couple of years after it
"mysteriously" becomes exponentially more laggy and exploit
prone than usual.

 "Hmm, i wonder how that happened?"

 *SCRATCHES-HEAD*

 *LOOKS-AT-INSTRUMENT-PANEL*

 "Oh noes!" O_O

 "The software fuel tank is almost _empty_!"

How else will they convince you to buy the latest copy of
windoze 95?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Gregory Ewing :

> * Charging money for copies of software is not the only way to make
> money from programming. You can charge for support services. You can
> charge for writing custom one-off software. There are people who make
> a good living from doing these things.

Maybe so. It can't be denied, though, that there are business models
that would collapse without copyright laws.

So be it. If your business model doesn't work, do something else. The
society is not responsible for upholding a particular business model.

The only relevant question is, is society gaining or losing by
sustaining copyright protections? This is not a question of any
fundamental individual rights.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:40:47 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Gregory Ewing
>  wrote:
>> There are some historical and present-day facts that don't support that
>> idea.
>>
>> * Software existed in the days before it became seen as something to be
>> sold for money per-copy. Both computer companies and programmers seemed
>> to to all right in that environment.
> 
> Third-party software? Can you give examples?
> 
> It doesn't count if the same organization (company, etc) created the
> hardware and the programming. It also doesn't count if it's hobbyists
> reprogramming their own units.

Why not? Historically, that's exactly where the software industry 
started. Commercial third-party software didn't exist until long after 
the software industry was well-established in the business market, and 
when the home computer industry began, the same process occurred again: 
the commercial third-party software market followed long afterwards, 
driven on the back of hobbyists writing their own software and sharing it 
around.


> I'm looking for examples of *third-party*
> software, of the sort that can today be saleable, but which - in this
> proposed alternate universe where copyright does not exist - would by
> force be given away for nothing.

Ah, its one of *those* challenges... "If we ignore all the facts that 
refutes my position, I challenge you to find a fact that refutes my 
position!"

*wink*

I don't think there would be any doubt that, minus copyright laws, the 
commercial third-party software industry would probably be much smaller. 
The biggest threat wouldn't be piracy in the "you wouldn't download a 
car" sense, but competitors mass duplicating your product and selling it 
more cheaply.

But even there, historically we've seen that consumers in Western 
countries will pirate software for free, they'll pay full price, but the 
majority won't pay for pirated software even if its cheaper. So its not 
clear that lack of copyright would necessarily have killed the commercial 
third-party software industry stone dead.

But to jump from there to the conclusion that there would be user-
generated software, no open source software, no public domain software, 
no corporate or academic in-house software, no freeware, no shareware, no 
hobbyist software, no freemium or advertising driven software or SAAS... 
that's a mighty big leap.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Gregory Ewing
 wrote:
> There are some historical and present-day facts that don't
> support that idea.
>
> * Software existed in the days before it became seen as
> something to be sold for money per-copy. Both computer
> companies and programmers seemed to to all right in that
> environment.

Third-party software? Can you give examples?

It doesn't count if the same organization (company, etc) created the
hardware and the programming. It also doesn't count if it's hobbyists
reprogramming their own units. I'm looking for examples of
*third-party* software, of the sort that can today be saleable, but
which - in this proposed alternate universe where copyright does not
exist - would by force be given away for nothing.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:


The bit you trimmed out was:


If the business model had always been "sell hardware, it comes fully
programmed", what would bring people to try to create third-party
software at all?


Maybe because they want to do things with the machine that
the manufacturer didn't anticipate? Maybe they just enjoy
programming and do it for fun?

Also, the business model doesn't have to be "sell hardware
that's fully programmed". It could be just "sell hardware,
it runs all this wonderful open source software you can
get".


my point was that, absent copyright and
the ability to make money from software, software probably *would not
exist*.


There are some historical and present-day facts that don't
support that idea.

* Software existed in the days before it became seen as
something to be sold for money per-copy. Both computer
companies and programmers seemed to to all right in that
environment.

* Currently there exist people who choose to write and
distribute software free of charge, even though they could
charge for it if they wanted due to copyright laws.

* Charging money for copies of software is not the only
way to make money from programming. You can charge for
support services. You can charge for writing custom
one-off software. There are people who make a good
living from doing these things.


Tell me, do you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability
to use a third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free, who other
than the original manufacturer will produce one?


That's a strained analogy, because there is a substantial
per-unit cost for making a dashboard.

But if it were possible to make your own dashboard at home
with a 3D printer for very little cost, I can well imagine
a hobbyist community springing up around designing and
making custom dashboards.

And if that community got big enough, I can imagine a car
company marketing a model that comes without any dashboard,
so you can install the dashboard of your choice.

Just like there are people that will sell you a computer
without any OS, so you can install the OS of your choice.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Rick Johnson
 wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote:
>> The software is more like the fuel.
>
> How so?
>
> (01) Can energy be extracted from software?

Yes, absolutely.

> (02) If so, at what rate is software depleted as the hardware
>  transforms it into energy?

That depends on the efficiency of the hardware involved. Ideally, you
should get at least 100 microninjas per bug-free line of code, but
cheap third-rate computers may fall a long way short of that.

> (03) What is the energy potential of... oh... say... a pint of
>  software?

I'm sorry, that question doesn't make sense. You cannot measure
software by the pint. It is sold by weight, not volume.

> (04) Is software a solvent?

Of course it is! A solvent is something which solves problems. If your
software isn't solving problems, what is it for?

> (05) Does software easily vaporize?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_(series)#Episode_Three

> (06) What is the flash point of software?

You'd have to ask Macromedia.

> (07) What sort of mining processes are required to extract
>  software (or its precursors) from the environment.

I'm not entirely sure, but as soon as you start talking about
"mining", graphics card prices go up. Please stop talking about
mining. I need to upgrade my video card so I can play Shadow of the
Tomb Raider, and I don't want to have to pay a bitcoin for the card.

> (08) How much more software do you estimate we can extract?

That's a question based on a myth. It was once thought that we would
achieve "peak software" and then run out, but as technology improves,
we gain the ability to extract more software from the same raw
materials. Also, there have been proposals to construct software
generation facilities on the moon. Google had grand plans, but they've
been deferred for now.

> (09) Does the concept of "peak software" have any potential
>  of becoming a toxic political football?

Definitely. See above, though; "peak software" is not actually a
thing. That won't stop it becoming a toxic football.

> (10) Who discovered software?

Nikola Tesla, but Edison got the credit.

> (11) And finally -- and in the interest of safety -- may we
>  have a look at the MSDS sheet for software?

Of course! Please remit $100 as a processing fee, and a stamped,
self-addressed envelope, to:

The Internet

(no other address needed; your post office will figure it out)

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Rick Johnson]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote:
> On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
> > A dashboard is a horrible analogy. Software and hardware
> > are connected at the _hip_.  A more correct analogy to
> > describe the relationship between computer hardware and
> > computer software would be a car and an engine. A car is
> > basically useless without an engine, and likewise for an
> > engine without a car.
> >
> I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The engine is
> also hardware.

My analogy was not intented to draw direct parallels between
car components and computer components. It was intented to
underscore the mutual dependancy between them. For example:
computers function by combining hardware and software.
Likewise, automobiles function by combining a power-plant
with a passenger compartment.

> The software is more like the fuel.

How so?

(01) Can energy be extracted from software?

(02) If so, at what rate is software depleted as the hardware
 transforms it into energy?

(03) What is the energy potential of... oh... say... a pint of
 software?

(04) Is software a solvent?

(05) Does software easily vaporize?

(06) What is the flash point of software?

(07) What sort of mining processes are required to extract
 software (or its precursors) from the environment.

(08) How much more software do you estimate we can extract?

(09) Does the concept of "peak software" have any potential
 of becoming a toxic political football?

(10) Who discovered software?

(11) And finally -- and in the interest of safety -- may we
 have a look at the MSDS sheet for software?

> > And yes, there are aftermarket engines sold by third
> > parties and people buy them all the time to replace OEM
> > engines.
> >
> It doesn't matter how good the engine is (or how much
> you've upgraded the processor), because without the fuel
> (or software) it's just a large paperweight (or room
> heater). :-)

Well, that was kinda my point.

No. Wait a sec. Allow me to rephrase.

That was _exactly_ my point.

:-)

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Alister via Python-list]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:03:59 +0100, MRAB wrote:

> On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> 
>>> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements about game
>>> publishing, and declaring that it's possible to use software to
>>> encourage hardware sales. But my point was that, absent copyright and
>>> the ability to make money from software, software probably *would not
>>> exist*. Tell me, do you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability
>>> to use a third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
>>> fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free,
>>> who other than the original manufacturer will produce one?
>> 
>> A dashboard is a horrible analogy.
>> 
>> Software and hardware are connected at the _hip_.
>> 
>> A more correct analogy to describe the relationship between computer
>> hardware and computer software would be a car and an engine. A car is
>> basically useless without an engine,
>> and likewise for an engine without a car.
>> 
> I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The engine is also
> hardware. The software is more like the fuel.
> 
>> And yes, there are aftermarket engines sold by third parties and people
>> buy them all the time to replace OEM engines.
>> 
> It doesn't matter how good the engine is (or how much you've upgraded
> the processor), because without the fuel (or software) it's just a large
> paperweight (or room heater). :-)

its a bloody lousy room heater without the fuel to burn & generate heat



-- 
I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[MRAB]

On 2018-06-11 20:17, Rick Johnson wrote:

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:


You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
use software to encourage hardware sales. But my point was
that, absent copyright and the ability to make money from
software, software probably *would not exist*. Tell me, do
you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability to use a
third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free,
who other than the original manufacturer will produce one?


A dashboard is a horrible analogy.

Software and hardware are connected at the _hip_.

A more correct analogy to describe the relationship between
computer hardware and computer software would be a car and
an engine. A car is basically useless without an engine,
and likewise for an engine without a car.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The engine is also 
hardware. The software is more like the fuel.



And yes, there are aftermarket engines sold by third parties
and people buy them all the time to replace OEM engines.

It doesn't matter how good the engine is (or how much you've upgraded 
the processor), because without the fuel (or software) it's just a large 
paperweight (or room heater). :-)

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Rick Johnson
 wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
>> about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
>> use software to encourage hardware sales. But my point was
>> that, absent copyright and the ability to make money from
>> software, software probably *would not exist*. Tell me, do
>> you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability to use a
>> third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
>> fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free,
>> who other than the original manufacturer will produce one?
>
> A dashboard is a horrible analogy.
>
> Software and hardware are connected at the _hip_.
>
> A more correct analogy to describe the relationship between
> computer hardware and computer software would be a car and
> an engine. A car is basically useless without an engine,
> and likewise for an engine without a car.
>
> And yes, there are aftermarket engines sold by third parties
> and people buy them all the time to replace OEM engines.

In other words:

"Your analogy is terrible. Here's a better analogy - one that doesn't work."

I think I'll stick to mine, thanks.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Rick Johnson]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:02:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:

> You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements
> about game publishing, and declaring that it's possible to
> use software to encourage hardware sales. But my point was
> that, absent copyright and the ability to make money from
> software, software probably *would not exist*. Tell me, do
> you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability to use a
> third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
> fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free,
> who other than the original manufacturer will produce one?

A dashboard is a horrible analogy. 

Software and hardware are connected at the _hip_.

A more correct analogy to describe the relationship between
computer hardware and computer software would be a car and
an engine. A car is basically useless without an engine,
and likewise for an engine without a car.

And yes, there are aftermarket engines sold by third parties
and people buy them all the time to replace OEM engines. 

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Gregory Ewing
>  wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>> You cannot, to
>>> my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
>>> permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> That's because, since we *do* have copyright laws, the
>> manufacturers of the consoles are able to make money by
>> selling the software as well as the hardware -- and they
>> want a monopoly on that source of income.
> Nice work there. You trimmed key parts of my post, and then responded
> to me out of context. Go back and read my actual post, then respond to
> what I actually said. Thanks!

The bit you trimmed out was:

> If the business model had always been "sell hardware, it comes fully
> programmed", what would bring people to try to create third-party
> software at all?

You're trying to argue against my hypothetical statements about game
publishing, and declaring that it's possible to use software to
encourage hardware sales. But my point was that, absent copyright and
the ability to make money from software, software probably *would not
exist*. Tell me, do you go to a car manufacturer and buy the ability
to use a third-party dashboard? If the dashboard itself is
fundamentally unsaleable, and MUST be given away for free, who other
than the original manufacturer will produce one?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

You trimmed key parts of my post,


I don't get this "You trimmed my post!11!" complaint that
people make. Trimming a post when replying is the *right*
thing to do. Just because someone doesn't quote a certain
part of what you wrote, doesn't mean that they didn't read
it or ignored it.

As I said, I didn't understand what argument you were trying
to make, so I may have been mistaken about what you thought
were the key parts. If you can point them out, I'll be
happy to respond to them.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 06:21:31 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
> Nice work there. You trimmed key parts of my post, and then responded to
> me out of context. Go back and read my actual post, then respond to what
> I actually said. Thanks!

I didn't trim any part of your post when I read it, but I took away the 
same message as Greg. Perhaps your point was not as clear as you thought 
it was.




-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Peter J. Holzer]

On 2018-06-11 06:35:27 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Back in the 90s, my family sold books, many of them imported and/or
> exported. We had a few books by Earl Rodd, all looking like books and
> behaving like books. And we also had the "Rodd Papers", which are
> individual photocopied leaflets (A5, maybe 20-32 pages tops). They're
> also copyrightable, right? Well here's the thing. One of the books was
> simply a published compilation of a large number of the papers. So
> what is the "work"? Is the book a brand-new work? If you cease to
> register the papers and start registering the book (one work, not
> dozens, and also a new work so the stupid exponentiation resets),
> people can't copy the papers either, because they're entirely
> contained within the book.

But they can, because each of the papers is now public domain.

This situation also exists with current copyright law. If a book is out
of copyright (either because the author has been dead for 70 years or
because it fell through one of the gaps of the various copyright law
changes in the US), you can re-publish it. Now you do have the copyright
for the new book, but that stops others only from copying your book, not
the original.


> So... all you have to do is, every couple of years, gather everything
> you've ever written into a brand new book and register it.

That would be stupid. Fortunately the solution is obvious.


> >> >  * Every worthwhile creation is worth $1,000 for ten years.
> >>
> >> Not true by a long shot, and if you don't believe me, you can pay me
> >> $1000 right now for ten years' use of any of my free software.
> >
> > I think he meant it the other way around: If you can sell your software
> > for 10 years, you can affort $1000 to have your monopoly protected.
> 
> Except that I'm not selling it. What if I want to give it away, but
> with the proviso that the document credits me properly? "Go ahead, use
> it, publish it, but keep my name on it" is a common thing for people
> to request. And it's toothless [1] without copyright; so if you have
> to pay money for the right to be credited,

Depends on the details of the law. For example, in most of Europe there
is a difference between the "Urheberrecht" (creator's rights) and the
"Verwertungsrecht" (exploitation rights) (there are no exact equivalent
in English, so I'm using the German words). The former is always bound
to the person who created the work and cannot be sold. The latter can
(and usually is). The right of a person to be credited could be part of
the former. There is also much less incentive to pretend you wrote
something you didn't if there is no financial advantage, so it may not
be that important.

> there's going to be a lot of corporate bullying.

I don't really see why there would be more than now.

hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer| we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) || because we have much more sophisticated
| |   | h...@hjp.at | management tools.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Peter J. Holzer  wrote:
> But with online distribution (not necessarily github) the boundaries
> become very fluid. When Debian still contained the Roxen webserver, it
> comprised over 100 packages: The maintainer had put every plugin into a
> separate package. I did something similar with my qpsmtpd plugins: Each
> is in a separate .deb or .rpm file.

Python has long been distributed as a single .msi file on Windows, but
as many separate .deb packages on Debian Linux. One work or many?

Back in the 90s, my family sold books, many of them imported and/or
exported. We had a few books by Earl Rodd, all looking like books and
behaving like books. And we also had the "Rodd Papers", which are
individual photocopied leaflets (A5, maybe 20-32 pages tops). They're
also copyrightable, right? Well here's the thing. One of the books was
simply a published compilation of a large number of the papers. So
what is the "work"? Is the book a brand-new work? If you cease to
register the papers and start registering the book (one work, not
dozens, and also a new work so the stupid exponentiation resets),
people can't copy the papers either, because they're entirely
contained within the book.

So... all you have to do is, every couple of years, gather everything
you've ever written into a brand new book and register it.

>> >  * Every worthwhile creation is worth $1,000 for ten years.
>>
>> Not true by a long shot, and if you don't believe me, you can pay me
>> $1000 right now for ten years' use of any of my free software.
>
> I think he meant it the other way around: If you can sell your software
> for 10 years, you can affort $1000 to have your monopoly protected.

Except that I'm not selling it. What if I want to give it away, but
with the proviso that the document credits me properly? "Go ahead, use
it, publish it, but keep my name on it" is a common thing for people
to request. And it's toothless [1] without copyright; so if you have
to pay money for the right to be credited, there's going to be a lot
of corporate bullying.

ChrisA

[1] No, it's not a dragon. I can't imagine why you would think that.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Peter J. Holzer]

On 2018-06-10 15:24:38 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
> 
> Ah yes...
> 
> Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace, 
> Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Force Awakens, Last 
> Jedi, Solo... they're all chapters in one work, yes?

Yes, that would be possible. But there were 40+ years between the
release of Star Wars and the release of Solo, so if George Lucas had
decided to wait until the series is complete before registering it for
copyright, he either couldn't have published it yet (Episode IX is
scheduled for next year) or he would have published the parts without
protection (effectively making them public domain).

So Lucas would have registered Star Wars in 1977, and when the Empire
Strikes Back came out in 1980, he would have had the option to register
it as a separate work or to register the series consisting of both
films. Wouldn't have made a difference since he would have had to
continue to pay for Star Wars to prevent it from falling into the public
domain.

At some point he probably would have decided that continued copyright
protection wasn't worth the cost, so the first three episodes would be
public domain by now (If the doubling period is only one year. The
article I read suggested different doubling periods for different kind
of works: 1 year for patents, 3 years for books, ... It also depends on
the initial fee: Start at $1 (a token amount), $100 (may cover the cost
of having a person actually looking at it), $1000, ...?)

hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer| we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) || because we have much more sophisticated
| |   | h...@hjp.at | management tools.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-06-10, Ben Bacarisse  wrote:
> Jon Ribbens  writes:
>
>> I'd suggest that since the processes he's purporting to disallow are
>> entirely standard and automated and he knows full well they exist and
>> that there is no mechanism by which they could be affected by his
>> notice, the notice has little effect.
>
> The Copyright notice is probably intended for human eyes.  IIRC his
> posts don't show up on Google groups, for example, so there *is* a
> mechanism by which *some* of the headers (it may be X-no-archive) do get
> acted on.

True - many Usenet headers are intended for automated processing - but
the meaning of X-No-Archive is not even slightly similar to what he
says in his copyright notice, and so any overlap between the effect of
the former and the intention of the latter is merely coincidental.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Gregory Ewing
 wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> You cannot, to
>> my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
>> permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.
>
>
> That's because, since we *do* have copyright laws, the
> manufacturers of the consoles are able to make money by
> selling the software as well as the hardware -- and they
> want a monopoly on that source of income.
>
> If there was no copyright, they wouldn't be able to
> make money from the software side alone, so there would
> be no incentive for them to lock things down that way.
> The opposite, in fact -- the more games are available
> for a machine, the more people are going to want to
> buy it.
>
>> Nobody can sell software without also selling
>> hardware, which is an expensive industry to get into.
>
>
> I don't follow what you're saying here. Are you suggesting
> that nobody would write any software for someone else's
> hardware if they couldn't sell it for money? Experience
> with the open source community that we do have suggests
> otherwise.
>

Nice work there. You trimmed key parts of my post, and then responded
to me out of context. Go back and read my actual post, then respond to
what I actually said. Thanks!

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 10 June 2018 14:42:02 Rick Johnson wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping
> > the books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another
> > guvmnt agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars
> > since Albert retired anyway.
>
> What century are you trapped in pal? Heck, all you need is a
> Godaddy(c) website and a simple HTML form (Hell, they even gots
> templates for that!!!).
>
> > Here in the hew hess aye, we originally had a copyright term of 7
> > years, renewable just once for another 7. I will date myself by
> > saying I can actually remember those days.  But then Disney started
> > buying senators and congressmen, and we now have this asinine
> > lifetime +70 years just to keep Mickey Mouse and Company's (oh, and
> > don't forget a widow named Cher) income rolling in.
>
> Yeah, and they've sucked up every independent animation house between
> here and Kathmandu.
>
Probably farther than that.

> > Thats the sort of stuff usually found, warm and squishy, on the
> > ground behind the male of the bovine specie.
>
> Huh? The female bovines don't defecate where you come from? Well then!
> i see! Say hello to Qin-I, would ya?

Oh they do, but have the great good sense to take several steps away from 
the evidence, if they can. :)

Qin-I? You lost me there.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Rick Johnson]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping the 
> books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another guvmnt 
> agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars since Albert 
> retired anyway.

What century are you trapped in pal? Heck, all you need is a Godaddy(c) website
and a simple HTML form (Hell, they even gots templates for that!!!).

> Here in the hew hess aye, we originally had a copyright term of 7 years, 
> renewable just once for another 7. I will date myself by saying I can 
> actually remember those days.  But then Disney started buying senators 
> and congressmen, and we now have this asinine lifetime +70 years just to 
> keep Mickey Mouse and Company's (oh, and don't forget a widow named 
> Cher) income rolling in.

Yeah, and they've sucked up every independent animation house between here and
Kathmandu.

> Thats the sort of stuff usually found, warm and squishy, on the ground 
> behind the male of the bovine specie.

Huh? The female bovines don't defecate where you come from? Well then! i see!
Say hello to Qin-I, would ya?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Rick Johnson]

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:34:58 PM UTC-5, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At
> the very least one should pay for copyright protection. One
> €1 for the first year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third
> and so on exponentially.

I like your idea of a exponential punitive annual increase
to "secure the right" of copyright protection. However, your
pricing scheme seems a bit outdated. Like, a century or
_two_ outdated. ;-)

Heck, in the spirit of the Python tutorial, i say we utilize
the Fibonacci sequence (slightly modified) and finally put
that atrocious code example to some good use.

Yep, and pass it an initial argument reflecting the current
"year of our lord", would ya?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Ben Bacarisse]

Jon Ribbens  writes:

> I'd suggest that since the processes he's purporting to disallow are
> entirely standard and automated and he knows full well they exist and
> that there is no mechanism by which they could be affected by his
> notice, the notice has little effect.

The Copyright notice is probably intended for human eyes.  IIRC his
posts don't show up on Google groups, for example, so there *is* a
mechanism by which *some* of the headers (it may be X-no-archive) do get
acted on.


-- 
Ben.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Chris Angelico :
> It's easy to look back NOW and say "even if software had no copyright,
> this could still exist". It's not so easy to see that such things
> would have come about. [...] I doubt very much that anyone other than
> hobbyists would write software that they're unable to sell.

A lot of software is custom-written to the specific needs of one
customer. That software is extremely expensive but would get written
regardless because the work must be done and couldn't be directly
exploited by competitors.

Now, as far as off-the-shelf products go (say computer games), the price
can be low because the identical product is sold to more than one
customer, sometimes even millions of customers.

What would happen to software products that didn't have copyright
protections? Nothing would prevent a competitor from starting to sell
your product as theirs.

This question must be asked in business in general. Could someone build
another Mexican Restaurant? Could someone build a similar auction web
site? Could someone go after your customers? And often the answer is,
yes they could so it's not worth the investment.

In this situation, will someone do the work or will it not get done? In
some cases, it would not get done. I still don't think the existence of
copyright laws is the proper burden to put on the society. Instead, the
government should fund such needs as it already does for necessary
things that don't have a market.

The government won't see an incentive to build a computer game so some
lucrative markets would disappear with the copyright gone. However, you
will see lots of creative community efforts to build not only games but
business utilities to address real needs. For example, a doctor in my
hometown built an appointment web app that was easier to use than the
expensive, professional alternative. When there's no copyright
protection, development communities can arise around such tools and the
germs can become high-quality applications over time.

> I'm also not sure that the MIT and BSD licenses would still be viable.
> Without copyright, they have no teeth, which would mean that their
> license terms of "don't sue me if it doesn't work" wouldn't apply.

I think the MIT and BSD licenses are just silly variants of the Public
Domain. The no-warranty clauses might not be enforceable anyway. Their
main point is the requirement for attribution.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Steven D'Aprano :

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
>> Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
>
> Ah yes...
>
> Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace,
> Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Force Awakens,
> Last Jedi, Solo... they're all chapters in one work, yes?

If the author so decides, but they'll have to pay the registration fee
at the time of publication.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:25:24 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:

> Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.

Ah yes...

Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Phantom Menace, 
Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Force Awakens, Last 
Jedi, Solo... they're all chapters in one work, yes?



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Peter J. Holzer]

On 2018-06-09 10:15:43 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:
> > Chris Angelico :
> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB  wrote:
> >>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
> >>
> >> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
> >> money from that protection. Ownership becomes pay-to-win, literally.
> >
> > In the words of Scrooge McDuck:
> >
> >https://i.stack.imgur.com/rMeiB.png>
> >
> >
> > But guys, surely you are familiar with the exponential function:
> >
> >  * Everybody can afford a year for $1.
> 
> $1 per what, though? According to GitHub, I have 157 repositories. Is
> that 157 separate things that cost $1 for a single year of protection?
> Or do I pay per file of source code?

When I first read about the scheme Marko is proposing here it was
presented mainly as an alternative of the current patent scheme.
There it is obvious: You pay per patent.

The article also extended it to books. There it is also obvious: You pay
per book.

Patents and books are nice, distinctive "works". You might argue
whether "The Lord of the Rings" is one book or three, and whether each
edition of "Learning Python" (there are now 5 of them) is a separate
book, but these are relatively easy cases.

Software is harder. When software was still sold in a nice box with a
three-ring binder and a few floppies, it was similar to a book: If it
comes in one box, it is one work to be copyrighted.

But with online distribution (not necessarily github) the boundaries
become very fluid. When Debian still contained the Roxen webserver, it
comprised over 100 packages: The maintainer had put every plugin into a
separate package. I did something similar with my qpsmtpd plugins: Each
is in a separate .deb or .rpm file.

There is also the problem of how to treat revisions: If I always
register the newest revision and stop paying for older revisions, is
code I didn't change still protected or not?

I don't remember whether the article addressed these problems. I guess I
should read it again (it was in CACM, a few years ago).

Personally, I would let the author decide what constitutes one work.
If you think your 157 git repos are a single work, register it as one.
Whenever you think you have made enough changes that this is a new work
which should be protected, register it again. And if the fees for your
old versions become too high, let them lapse.


> >  * Every worthwhile creation is worth $1,000 for ten years.
> 
> Not true by a long shot, and if you don't believe me, you can pay me
> $1000 right now for ten years' use of any of my free software.

I think he meant it the other way around: If you can sell your software
for 10 years, you can affort $1000 to have your monopoly protected.


> >  * And if Disney can pay the fee for Mickey Mouse for fifty years, the
> >United States Government can quit all taxation, pay off the national
> >debt and buy every American a luxury yacht and a private island in
> >the Caribbean.
> 
> And if you think that Disney would actually let it compound according
> to your theoretical definition, you're a dupe AND a fool. They'd
> figure out some way to reset the counter every five years.

More likely they would prevent such law from being passed in the first
place.

hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer| we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) || because we have much more sophisticated
| |   | h...@hjp.at | management tools.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

I doubt very much that anyone other than
hobbyists would write software that they're unable to sell.


Or, maybe, people who *use* the machines as part of their
livelihood, and have an incentive to produce good, reliable
software that does what they need.


I'm also not sure that the MIT and BSD licenses would still be viable.
Without copyright, they have no teeth, which would mean that their
license terms of "don't sue me if it doesn't work" wouldn't apply.


It's not clear that such terms are even enforcible now.
There are places where wording like "not even the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" etc. have
no meaning, because you're not allowed to contract out
of things like that.

But in any case, there's nothing stopping you from
attaching a notice like that to something you distribute,
it just wouldn't be called a licence, but a disclaimer
or something like that. It would have the same number of
teeth either way.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

You cannot, to
my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
permission from Nintendo or Microsoft.


That's because, since we *do* have copyright laws, the
manufacturers of the consoles are able to make money by
selling the software as well as the hardware -- and they
want a monopoly on that source of income.

If there was no copyright, they wouldn't be able to
make money from the software side alone, so there would
be no incentive for them to lock things down that way.
The opposite, in fact -- the more games are available
for a machine, the more people are going to want to
buy it.


Nobody can sell software without also selling
hardware, which is an expensive industry to get into.


I don't follow what you're saying here. Are you suggesting
that nobody would write any software for someone else's
hardware if they couldn't sell it for money? Experience
with the open source community that we do have suggests
otherwise.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:36:34 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>>> That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things would have
>>> turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software. Certainly different,
>>> but not necessarily worse.
>>>
>>> In the early days, computer manufacturers didn't worry about people
>>> copying their software, because it was no use without the hardware, and
>>> selling hardware was how they made their money. There's no reason that
>>> business model couldn't have continued into the PC era.
>>>
>>>
>> It would have meant that third-party software would not exist.
>
> Says the fellow using a free mail server (funded by advertising) on a
> free OS (funded by donations) on a free mailing list about a free
> programming language :-)
>
> Lack of copyright for software would not affect software-as-a-service
> like Gmail. It would not affect FOSS licences like the MIT and BSD
> licence, although it might declaw the GPL.

I'm not sure that these kinds of concepts would even exist, though. If
the business model had always been "sell hardware, it comes fully
programmed", what would bring people to try to create third-party
software at all? It's easy to look back NOW and say "even if software
had no copyright, this could still exist". It's not so easy to see
that such things would have come about. We live today in a world of
massive cross-compatibility and third-party software creations, where
your "computer" may have many different manufacturers and many
different software authors, all happily running together. While IBM
did create hardware compatibility standards (allowing other
manufacturers to create fully-compatible expansion cards etc) as a
viable commercial decision, I doubt very much that anyone other than
hobbyists would write software that they're unable to sell. Don't
forget that "software-as-a-service" is an extremely young concept; to
be a saleable form of software (as opposed to a saleable service
involving both hardware and software), it depends on people having the
clients AND a means of connecting to the servers - which today means
web browsers and internet connections. Possibly the oldest "SaaS"
concept for computers would be a dial-in BBS.

Would that sort of thing exist if copyright did not? I'm not sure.
Maybe it would, but it's certainly not "oh well saas wouldn't be
affected by this".

I'm also not sure that the MIT and BSD licenses would still be viable.
Without copyright, they have no teeth, which would mean that their
license terms of "don't sue me if it doesn't work" wouldn't apply.
IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that those terms are in the licenses for
good reason. The GPL, which has much stronger requirements, would be
completely powerless.

"Not affect" is far FAR too broad. Open source still depends on copyright.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 13:36:34 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

>> That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things would have
>> turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software. Certainly different,
>> but not necessarily worse.
>>
>> In the early days, computer manufacturers didn't worry about people
>> copying their software, because it was no use without the hardware, and
>> selling hardware was how they made their money. There's no reason that
>> business model couldn't have continued into the PC era.
>>
>>
> It would have meant that third-party software would not exist.

Says the fellow using a free mail server (funded by advertising) on a 
free OS (funded by donations) on a free mailing list about a free 
programming language :-)

Lack of copyright for software would not affect software-as-a-service 
like Gmail. It would not affect FOSS licences like the MIT and BSD 
licence, although it might declaw the GPL.

It would not affect shareware and postcardware and freeware software to 
any appreciable amount. It would not affect the primary driver for FOSS, 
namely people scratching their own itch and being willing to share that 
solution with others.

So long as people had access to interpreters and compilers and the 
ability to write and distribute their own code, the lack of copyright for 
software would only have mattered for certain economic models for 
software, namely the paid, closed-source, non-free commercial software 
market. That's an important market, but it is not all of it.

The scenario you describe would require computers to be locked down 
behind paywalls with trusted computing hardware (a misnomer, because its 
about *not trusting the user* rather than trusting the computer) etc., or 
a wholesale move to SAS with no access to any sort of development 
environment beyond Excel spreadsheets.

While we are creeping ever closer to the day that the general purpose 
computer is extinct or only available to an elite few, while the rest of 
us are stuck in walled gardens using only approved software, the 
technology for that didn't exist in the early days of the home computer 
revolution.


-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-06-08, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> Yes, this is true. It's not copyright that is unenforceable, but the
> copyright notice in his message. Nobody is denying that he owns his
> own words; but by posting them on a public forum, he - like everyone
> else here - is implicitly granting us the right to read them.

Copyright law protects copying - you don't need permission to read
things, except inasmuch as the words must be copied onto your screen
in order for you to see them.

The question is whether he's implicitly granting the right for his
posts to be copied to all the places that Usenet posts will generally
get copied to when one posts them, or whether his header message
explicitly disavowing such permission overrides the implicit grant.

I'd suggest that since the processes he's purporting to disallow are
entirely standard and automated and he knows full well they exist and
that there is no mechanism by which they could be affected by his
notice, the notice has little effect.

> Right. Imagine if I write a poem, just like you say, and then I have
> the words posted on a gigantic billboard. In small print in the bottom
> corner of the billboard, I say "Copyright 2018 Chris Angelico. Taking
> photographs of this billboard is forbidden.". Do I still own copyright
> in the poem? Definitely. Can I stop people from (or sue people for)
> taking photos of the billboard? Probably not, although that's one for
> the lawyers to argue.

You probably can actually. I'm not an expert but I seem to recall the
rules are along the lines that you can't complain if your billboard
happens to appear incidentally in the background of a photograph,
but if someone takes a photo specifically *of* the billboard, your
copyright is infringed.

>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very least
>> one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first year, €2
>> for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>
> Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?

Because ideas are not inherently property. Why should you get to "own"
a particular sequence of notes, or words, or colours? Why should the
government grant you and enforce an ability to prevent other people
singing those notes, or writing those words, or painting those colours?

> Copyright laws and international treaties are there to protect content
> creators and encourage creation. They need to have set expiration time
> (IMO 50 years is long enough - not "50 years since author's death" but
> 50 years since publication) after which the work becomes free to use,
> but the protections are important and extremely useful.

That was the original intention of copyright certainly, but I'd
hope that it is relatively non-controversial that the terms limits
on copyright these days have skewed the balance far too much in
favour of copyright owners and away from the public.

> Open source would not exist without copyright, because it is
> copyright law that gives license terms their meaning

That's patent nonsense. The only reason, in general, that open source
even requires any licence terms because of the existence of copyright
law. Sure, you couldn't do tricks like the GPL without copyright law,
but then there would be much less *need* for the GPL without copyright
law.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 09 June 2018 20:33:06 Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:48:17 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Richard Damon :
> >> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the
> >> eyes of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't
> >> use Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just
> >> don't provide it.
> >
> > It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that
> > would be good.
>
> Are you proposing to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well? Good luck
> with that.
>
> Do your customers and clients know your opinion on releasing code you
> write for them to the rest of the world?
>
If they did, I expect it would cut the length of his ladder to where he 
eats off the hog by serious amounts.

While we may voice our opinions of the current copyright laws, they are 
to the advantage of companies who would have little or no reticence 
about silenceing dissenting opinions that might fall on the lawmakers 
ears. Those of you working for the man ought not to forget that.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Richard Damon :

> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>> be good.
>
> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
> non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff
> would leak. More likely the work conditions at those places would get
> stricter, and likely would make it hard for someone inside to 'make a
> copy'.

Copying some general-purpose frameworks and libraries is not a trade
secret any more than, say, clever HR practices.

> More importantly, if we didn't have copyright laws, we likely didn't
> get windows or even Dos anywhere near as early, and maybe even not
> home computers.

I'm not moved.

> I've had this discussion before, and I think you underestimate how
> much innovation would be inhibited it companies were restricted from
> being able to make a profit off the development of intellectual
> property.
>
> Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for
> companies to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the
> base of commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to
> run it on wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive,
> and a limited base to promote the development of the Free Software
> movement.

No doubt there would be some damage -- I could lose my job, for example.
I believe, though, necessary and useful things will get done even in the
absense of copyright protections. I *may* mean that some of those
necessary and useful things need public funding.

The situation is very analogous to science, which depends on public
funding and is based on open exchange of ideas and discoveries.

Your belief and mine can be put to incremental tests so an immediate
revolution is not needed. For example, set a fixed date when
*everything* will fall into Public Domain (say, year 2100). As the date
approaches, we might start seeing the good and bad societal effects of
the change and can react accordingly. Maybe there *is* a need for
copyright protection, and the optimal duration turns out to be five
years from publication.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Gregory Ewing
 wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for companies
>> to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the base of
>> commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to run it on
>> wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive, and a limited
>> base to promote the development of the Free Software movement.
>
>
> That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things
> would have turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software.
> Certainly different, but not necessarily worse.
>
> In the early days, computer manufacturers didn't worry about
> people copying their software, because it was no use without
> the hardware, and selling hardware was how they made their
> money. There's no reason that business model couldn't have
> continued into the PC era.
>

It would have meant that third-party software would not exist.

The nearest comparison we have today is game consoles. You cannot, to
my knowledge, publish a game for the PS4 or Xbox 360 without
permission from Nintendo or Microsoft. Take that just a little bit
further and imagine that the game console you just bought is populated
SOLELY with games by the same publisher. And now imagine that this
applies to every piece of computing hardware: an IBM computer runs
only IBM programs, etc. Nobody can sell software without also selling
hardware, which is an expensive industry to get into. Is that an
improvement over what we now have?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Richard Damon wrote:

Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for companies
to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the base of
commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to run it on
wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive, and a limited
base to promote the development of the Free Software movement.


That's all speculation. It's impossible to say how things
would have turned out if copyrights didn't apply to software.
Certainly different, but not necessarily worse.

In the early days, computer manufacturers didn't worry about
people copying their software, because it was no use without
the hardware, and selling hardware was how they made their
money. There's no reason that business model couldn't have
continued into the PC era.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Richard Damon wrote:

If software providers could no longer depend on Copyright law, then you
would see much more use of the hobbling copy protection technologies,


Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with open source, since,
as you say, the sort of people that don't want their binaries
copied don't release their source anyway.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano
 wrote:
> I think the wise thing is to have *just enough* copyright but not too
> much. Zero is not enough, but what we have now is too much.
>

Agreed. If copyright lapsed by default after ten years but could be
extended through paid registration to a hard limit of fifty, I think a
lot of things would be better off. Numbers could be tweaked but
something along those lines.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:02:30 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Richard Damon :
>>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>>> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
>>> provide it.
>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>> be good.
> 
> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
> non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff would
> leak. More likely the work conditions at those places would get
> stricter, and likely would make it hard for someone inside to 'make a
> copy'.
> 
> More importantly, if we didn't have copyright laws, we likely didn't get
> windows or even Dos anywhere near as early, and maybe even not home
> computers.

I think that Marko is being awfully naive about copyright, but I think 
that your claim is a gross misrepresentation of the early history of 
computing. The money was in selling the hardware, especially in the home 
computer market, not the software.

Things would have been ... interesting ... if (let's say) IBM had been 
free just take CP/M and use that, but don't underestimate the benefits of 
dealing with the people who actually wrote the software and understand 
it, even if you could just take the software and work on it yourself.

(Richard Stallman makes a pretty penny consulting for GNU software.)

Another factor you failed to account for is that without piracy (in other 
words, despite copyright, not because of copyright) Microsoft's software 
would be unlikely to hold its preeminent position it does today. From 
Word and especially Excel, Windows, MS BASIC and DOS, Microsoft captured 
the market *because of* copyright infringement, not in spite of it.

The bottom line is, the idea that copyright is responsible for innovation 
is more a matter of faith than economic reality. Economists who study 
this sort of thing argue back and forth whether the economic cost of 
copyright outweighs the benefits, but one way or the other it is hardly a 
clear cut win for copyright as conventional wisdom says.

I think the wise thing is to have *just enough* copyright but not too 
much. Zero is not enough, but what we have now is too much.


-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 13:48:17 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Richard Damon :
>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
>> provide it.
> 
> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
> be good.

Are you proposing to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well? Good luck 
with that.

Do your customers and clients know your opinion on releasing code you 
write for them to the rest of the world?


-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Richard Damon :
> In the comparison to science, I would say that my guess is that a LOT
> more science is being done by private companies being encouraged by
> the promise of Patent protection than by the support of the general
> public. Admittedly, there are likely significant differences in focus
> of these aspects.

"Proprietary science" seems like an oxymoron to me. At best,
profit-seeking research can produce scientific discoveries as a
side-effect.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Richard Damon]

On 6/9/18 3:06 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon :
> 
>> On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
>>> be good.
>>
>> If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
>> non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff
>> would leak. More likely the work conditions at those places would get
>> stricter, and likely would make it hard for someone inside to 'make a
>> copy'.
> 
> Copying some general-purpose frameworks and libraries is not a trade
> secret any more than, say, clever HR practices.
> 
>> More importantly, if we didn't have copyright laws, we likely didn't
>> get windows or even Dos anywhere near as early, and maybe even not
>> home computers.
> 
> I'm not moved.
> 
>> I've had this discussion before, and I think you underestimate how
>> much innovation would be inhibited it companies were restricted from
>> being able to make a profit off the development of intellectual
>> property.
>>
>> Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for
>> companies to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the
>> base of commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to
>> run it on wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive,
>> and a limited base to promote the development of the Free Software
>> movement.
> 
> No doubt there would be some damage -- I could lose my job, for example.
> I believe, though, necessary and useful things will get done even in the
> absense of copyright protections. I *may* mean that some of those
> necessary and useful things need public funding.
> 
> The situation is very analogous to science, which depends on public
> funding and is based on open exchange of ideas and discoveries.
> 
> Your belief and mine can be put to incremental tests so an immediate
> revolution is not needed. For example, set a fixed date when
> *everything* will fall into Public Domain (say, year 2100). As the date
> approaches, we might start seeing the good and bad societal effects of
> the change and can react accordingly. Maybe there *is* a need for
> copyright protection, and the optimal duration turns out to be five
> years from publication.
> 
> 
> Marko
> 

In the comparison to science, I would say that my guess is that a LOT
more science is being done by private companies being encouraged by the
promise of Patent protection than by the support of the general public.
Admittedly, there are likely significant differences in focus of these
aspects.

I will agree that the current rules may have been pushed out of balance
by greed. Not sure if 5 years for copyright is long enough, but the
life+70 that the House of the Mouse got is too long.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Richard Damon]

On 6/9/18 6:48 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Richard Damon :
>> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
>> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
>> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
>> provide it.
> It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
> be good.

If you plan on eliminating not only copyright, but trade secret and
non-disclosure laws, sure, maybe. Yes probably some limited stuff would
leak. More likely the work conditions at those places would get
stricter, and likely would make it hard for someone inside to 'make a copy'.

More importantly, if we didn't have copyright laws, we likely didn't get
windows or even Dos anywhere near as early, and maybe even not home
computers.
>> The thing that gives the Open Source licenses the power to force
>> people to share the source code is that their IS a copyright on the
>> source code and the usage license on it demands revealing
>> modifications to others.
> Most open-source licenses don't have that stipulation:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-sour
>ce_software_licenses>
>
> In particular, CPython's license doesn't seem to require it:
>
>https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/LICENSE>
>
>> If software providers could no longer depend on Copyright law, then
>> you would see much more use of the hobbling copy protection
>> technologies, and automatically enforced licensing methods. That, and
>> a lot less software produced.
> The consequences would be hard to estimate precisely. You don't need so
> many reimplementations of ideas if good ideas could be copied freely. I
> believe the society would gain faster progress of software solutions
> with the copyright restrictions gone.
>
>
> Marko

I've had this discussion before, and I think you underestimate how much
innovation would be inhibited it companies were restricted from being
able to make a profit off the development of intellectual property.

Our current computing environment grew out of the ability for companies
to make a profit out of the sales of software. Without the base of
commercial software, the demand for inexpensive hardware to run it on
wouldn't be there, and computers then would be expensive, and a limited
base to promote the development of the Free Software movement.

-- 
Richard Damon

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Richard Damon :
> Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes
> of the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use
> Copyright to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't
> provide it.

It would leak out with developers who move to new jobs. And that would
be good.

> The thing that gives the Open Source licenses the power to force
> people to share the source code is that their IS a copyright on the
> source code and the usage license on it demands revealing
> modifications to others.

Most open-source licenses don't have that stipulation:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-sour
   ce_software_licenses>

In particular, CPython's license doesn't seem to require it:

   https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/LICENSE>

> If software providers could no longer depend on Copyright law, then
> you would see much more use of the hobbling copy protection
> technologies, and automatically enforced licensing methods. That, and
> a lot less software produced.

The consequences would be hard to estimate precisely. You don't need so
many reimplementations of ideas if good ideas could be copied freely. I
believe the society would gain faster progress of software solutions
with the copyright restrictions gone.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Richard Damon]

On 6/9/18 1:07 AM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Open source would not exist without copyright,because it is
>> copyright law that gives license terms their meaning.
>
> That statement doesn't make any sense. If there were no
> copyright laws, there would be no need for licences to
> distribute software.
>
> You seem to be saying that nobody would ever release the
> source of their software unless they could impose some
> kind of restrictions on what people could do with it.
>
> But I don't think that's true at all. Open sharing of
> software was the *default* before people got the idea
> of applying copyright laws to it. If there were no
> copyright laws, people who wanted to share their source
> would still do so, and people who wanted to keep it a
> trade secret would still do so. The only difference is
> there would be less lawyers making money out of it. 
Copyright law is not what makes something 'closed source' in the eyes of
the Open Source community. For example, Microsoft doesn't use Copyright
to keep the source code for Windows secret, they just don't provide it.
The thing that gives the Open Source licenses the power to force people
to share the source code is that their IS a copyright on the source code
and the usage license on it demands revealing modifications to others.

If software providers could no longer depend on Copyright law, then you
would see much more use of the hobbling copy protection technologies,
and automatically enforced licensing methods. That, and a lot less
software produced.

-- 
Richard Damon

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 June 2018 23:11:22 Gregory Ewing wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > The courts weren't amused. I don't know as any of us ever cut those
> > patent troll turkey's a check,
>
> Patent troll turkeys: Don't cut them checks, cut their necks!
>
> (Insert suitable stock photo of a turkey about to have its
> head removed.)
>
> --
> Greg

That was my first impulse. But thats pretty sick bird, highly frowned on 
by the "authorities". People like that really should be removed from the 
gene pool, which would markedly enhance the human race after a while.

Stress, that feeling created by resisting the urge to strangle someone 
who desperately needs it.

But I've had the ultimate revenge, I've had the great good fortune to 
have outlived all my enemies save one, me. My clumsiness is getting 
worse. I bitch and belly-ache, to those that will listen, and someone 
will tell me they they hope to get along as well as I do when they are 
83.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

Open source would not exist without copyright,because it is
copyright law that gives license terms their meaning.


That statement doesn't make any sense. If there were no
copyright laws, there would be no need for licences to
distribute software.

You seem to be saying that nobody would ever release the
source of their software unless they could impose some
kind of restrictions on what people could do with it.

But I don't think that's true at all. Open sharing of
software was the *default* before people got the idea
of applying copyright laws to it. If there were no
copyright laws, people who wanted to share their source
would still do so, and people who wanted to keep it a
trade secret would still do so. The only difference is
there would be less lawyers making money out of it.


Even if your license terms amount
to "do what you like with this but be sure to credit me as the
author", that's only enforceable because of copyright law.


If attribution is all that really matters, it could
be addressed by quite a different kind of law. Or
tackle it socially rather than legally. Get it out
there first with your name all over it, so that anyone
who tries to "steal" it later will receive the
appropriate level of public shaming.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

MRAB wrote:

So those with the most money can buy the most protection?


That's the way it works with patents...

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gregory Ewing]

Gene Heskett wrote:
The courts weren't amused. I don't know as any of us ever cut those 
patent troll turkey's a check,


Patent troll turkeys: Don't cut them checks, cut their necks!

(Insert suitable stock photo of a turkey about to have its
head removed.)

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
 wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 03:54:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> (Whether linking to a third-party Youtube video is itself a violation of
>> the original author's copyright is even more complicated. IANAL and I am
>> not going to even think about how messy that situation could get.)
>
> Describing a link to a Youtube video as copyright infringement is an
> incredibly egregious example of copyright creep. Such a link in no way
> copies the copyrighted work, nor does it distribute the work.
>
> (The video itself may or may not infringe, but that's another question.)
>
> It might be argued that it *facilitates copyright infringement*, in the
> same way telling people that they can buy a crowbar from Bunnings
> facilitates breaking and entering. But it does not and should not be
> considered copyright infringement under any circumstances.

It was the "facilitates" part that I was referring to. If the video in
question infringes, and I share a link to it, am I guilty of sharing
something around? What if the original owner uploaded it as an
unlisted video, and I share that link around? What if the uploader
(who is not the owner) legitimately stayed within "fair use", but I
piece together the entire original from a bunch of links, creating a
playlist with all of the content, and share that?

I'm sure there are legal answers to all of those questions, but it's
definitely hairy territory.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 03:54:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Right. Imagine if I write a poem, just like you say, and then I have the
> words posted on a gigantic billboard. In small print in the bottom
> corner of the billboard, I say "Copyright 2018 Chris Angelico. Taking
> photographs of this billboard is forbidden.". Do I still own copyright
> in the poem? Definitely. Can I stop people from (or sue people for)
> taking photos of the billboard? Probably not, although that's one for
> the lawyers to argue.

If it were you? Probably not.

If it were a building owned by a major company with deep pockets and 
powerful friends, or one with a "special relationship" to the government, 
especially if they can make a buck from it? Then yes, taking photos of 
publicly visible buildings and even natural features can be copyright 
infringement.

https://www.diyphotography.net/10-famous-landmarks-youre-allowed-
photograph-commercial-use/

[,...]
> (Whether linking to a third-party Youtube video is itself a violation of
> the original author's copyright is even more complicated. IANAL and I am
> not going to even think about how messy that situation could get.)

Describing a link to a Youtube video as copyright infringement is an 
incredibly egregious example of copyright creep. Such a link in no way 
copies the copyrighted work, nor does it distribute the work.

(The video itself may or may not infringe, but that's another question.)

It might be argued that it *facilitates copyright infringement*, in the 
same way telling people that they can buy a crowbar from Bunnings 
facilitates breaking and entering. But it does not and should not be 
considered copyright infringement under any circumstances.

The fact that people even fear that it might is a good example of how the 
necessary and useful monopoly of copyright has grown to be a monster.


[...]
> Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?

Because such a right is no right at all, but a privilege granted to you 
by the government for specific purposes. Copyright is not a natural right.

Because such a privilege infringes on other people's natural rights to 
copy what they see and hear. If somebody tells you a story, it is the 
most natural thing in the world to repeat it if you liked it.

> And who would you pay that to anyway? The one world government?

No, your national government of course, which would then have treaties 
with other trading blocks or countries that effectively say "you respect 
and enforce our copyrights and we'll respect and enforce yours".

But how quickly we forget the past. In my lifetime, copyright was not 
automatic. You had to officially register a work, or else it was in the 
public domain. If it wasn't worth it to you to fill out a registration 
form and post it, why should you be given a monopoly on the work?

For decades the US government charged a fee to register copyright, and 
the vast bulk of copyrighted works were not renewed after the first 13 
year term expired. Which is perfectly normal: the vast bulk of copyright 
works have no real value to the creator and no reasonable prospect of 
earning them income after a decade or two. And yet we impoverish our 
cultural commons by keeping works locked up under monopolistic laws for a 
lifetime past the death the author.

I think that the monopolization of so-called "intellectual property" 
rights has grown to a harmful extent. Economists who study this have 
found that copyright hurts the economy more than it helps (it discourages 
creators more than encourages) but if we could roll it back somewhat, I 
think it would be a good and useful tool:

- automatic, free copyright for an initial term of, let's say, 20 years;

- followed by one more free term of ten years requiring registration;

- followed by additional ten-year copyright terms, paid for at (say)
  $100 a term;

- up to a maximum length of sixty years, or the author's life plus
  30 years, whichever comes first;

- and a real commitment to recognising the public domain and free
  culture it as an asset to be protected and encouraged, not just
  a commons to be looted, monetized and locked up.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing
it everywhere." -- Jon Ronson

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB  wrote:
>>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
>>
>> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
>> money from that protection. Ownership becomes pay-to-win, literally.
>
> In the words of Scrooge McDuck:
>
>https://i.stack.imgur.com/rMeiB.png>
>
>
> But guys, surely you are familiar with the exponential function:
>
>  * Everybody can afford a year for $1.

$1 per what, though? According to GitHub, I have 157 repositories. Is
that 157 separate things that cost $1 for a single year of protection?
Or do I pay per file of source code?

>  * Every worthwhile creation is worth $1,000 for ten years.

Not true by a long shot, and if you don't believe me, you can pay me
$1000 right now for ten years' use of any of my free software.

>  * And if Disney can pay the fee for Mickey Mouse for fifty years, the
>United States Government can quit all taxation, pay off the national
>debt and buy every American a luxury yacht and a private island in
>the Caribbean.

And if you think that Disney would actually let it compound according
to your theoretical definition, you're a dupe AND a fool. They'd
figure out some way to reset the counter every five years.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 June 2018 16:01:06 Larry Martell wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa  
wrote:
> > At the moment nobody pays
> > the government to enforce copyrights.
>
> No, everyone pays for what the government does, poorly.

There, I fixed it for you Larry. :)

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Chris Angelico :

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB  wrote:
>> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?
>
> Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
> money from that protection. Ownership becomes pay-to-win, literally.

In the words of Scrooge McDuck:

   https://i.stack.imgur.com/rMeiB.png>


But guys, surely you are familiar with the exponential function:

 * Everybody can afford a year for $1.

 * Every worthwhile creation is worth $1,000 for ten years.

 * And if Disney can pay the fee for Mickey Mouse for fifty years, the
   United States Government can quit all taxation, pay off the national
   debt and buy every American a luxury yacht and a private island in
   the Caribbean.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:59 AM, MRAB  wrote:
> On 2018-06-08 19:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>> Chris Angelico :
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:

 PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
 least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
 year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?
>>
>>
>> You shouldn't have to. IMO the government shouldn't interfere with other
>> people distributing your creations without your permission.
>>
>> I offered a compromise: the government steps in to defend your monopoly
>> to your creation and you will pay for the protection -- exponentially.
>>
>>> At what point does a creation have to be paid for - do I pay only if I
>>> think that I can make money off it? If I fail to pay, what happens -
>>
>>
>> No money, no protection.
>>
> So those with the most money can buy the most protection?

Yes, or more specifically, those who believe they can make the most
money from that protection. Ownership becomes pay-to-win, literally.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[MRAB]

On 2018-06-08 19:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

Chris Angelico :


On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:

PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.


Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?


You shouldn't have to. IMO the government shouldn't interfere with other
people distributing your creations without your permission.

I offered a compromise: the government steps in to defend your monopoly
to your creation and you will pay for the protection -- exponentially.


At what point does a creation have to be paid for - do I pay only if I
think that I can make money off it? If I fail to pay, what happens -


No money, no protection.


So those with the most money can buy the most protection?

[snip]
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Larry Martell]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:
> At the moment nobody pays
> the government to enforce copyrights.

No, everyone pays for what the government does.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Gene Heskett :

> On Friday 08 June 2018 13:34:44 Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
>> least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
>> year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>
> I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping the 
> books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another guvmnt 
> agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars since Albert 
> retired anyway.

That exponential system would pay for itself. At the moment nobody pays
the government to enforce copyrights.

> But then Disney started buying senators and congressmen, and we now
> have this asinine lifetime +70 years just to keep Mickey Mouse and
> Company's (oh, and don't forget a widow named Cher) income rolling in.

In my scheme, €15/$15 would buy you four years of exclusive rights to
your creation. If it turns profitable, an extra $1,008 would give you
six more years (10 years total -- not too bad). And if you hit a
jackpot, $1,000,000 for twenty years of exclusive rights shouldn't be
too much to ask.

And speaking of Disney, for a mere $1,000,000,000 it could get a
whopping 30 years of exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse!


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 June 2018 13:34:44 Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Gene Heskett :
> > On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
> >> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the
> >> message, and is most likely unenforceable.
> >
> > As the courts have so found when this has come up over the last 30
> > years. Basically, its just some newly minted lawyer trying to earn
> > his place at the feeding trough.
>
> Copyrights exist whether they are declared or not.
>
> If I publish a poem or, say, a Python application on Usenet, you will
> need my permission to distribute it. Of course, its dissemination via
> Usenet and remailers is ultimately *me* distributing my work.
>
> In one Usenet discussion I published my translation of a Finnish
> Christmas carol. The author of the original lyrics had died more than
> 70 years before so that was ok. However, the melody was still under
> copyright so I didn't have a right to *explain* in any direct manner
> how the melody went.
>
> Luckily, someone had posted the song on Youtube so I could provide a
> link (although even that could be considered criminal in some
> jurisdictions).
>
>
> Marko
>
> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
> least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
> year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.

I rather like that idea. Unforch, who would be in charge of keeping the 
books uptodate? The USTPO? Of course that would expand another guvmnt 
agencies payroll x10, and its a waste of taxpayer dollars since Albert 
retired anyway.

Here in the hew hess aye, we originally had a copyright term of 7 years, 
renewable just once for another 7. I will date myself by saying I can 
actually remember those days.  But then Disney started buying senators 
and congressmen, and we now have this asinine lifetime +70 years just to 
keep Mickey Mouse and Company's (oh, and don't forget a widow named 
Cher) income rolling in.

Thats the sort of stuff usually found, warm and squishy, on the ground 
behind the male of the bovine specie.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Chris Angelico :

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:
>> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very
>> least one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first
>> year, €2 for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
>
> Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?

You shouldn't have to. IMO the government shouldn't interfere with other
people distributing your creations without your permission.

I offered a compromise: the government steps in to defend your monopoly
to your creation and you will pay for the protection -- exponentially.

> At what point does a creation have to be paid for - do I pay only if I
> think that I can make money off it? If I fail to pay, what happens -

No money, no protection.

> are people allowed to completely reuse and remix my work without even
> acknowledging me?

That would be ideal, absolutely!

> And who would you pay that to anyway? The one world government?

A good question! If I violate your foreign copyright in my country,
which country should enforce the collection of damages?

There's a precedent. If I send you a letter by mail, only my country's
postal service gets money but your country's postal service will deliver
it to you without compensation.

> the protections are important and extremely useful.

Disagree there.

> Open source would not exist without copyright, because it is copyright
> law that gives license terms their meaning.

Some people would lose, others would win. On the balance, society would
win out by dropping the concept of a copyright.

> If people had to pay exorbitant rates for the privilege of being
> properly credited for their work, theft would completely trump
> generosity.

That wouldn't be theft.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:
> Gene Heskett :
>> On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
>>> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
>>> and is most likely unenforceable.
>>
>> As the courts have so found when this has come up over the last 30 years.
>> Basically, its just some newly minted lawyer trying to earn his place at
>> the feeding trough.
>
> Copyrights exist whether they are declared or not.

Yes, this is true. It's not copyright that is unenforceable, but the
copyright notice in his message. Nobody is denying that he owns his
own words; but by posting them on a public forum, he - like everyone
else here - is implicitly granting us the right to read them.

> If I publish a poem or, say, a Python application on Usenet, you will
> need my permission to distribute it. Of course, its dissemination via
> Usenet and remailers is ultimately *me* distributing my work.

Right. Imagine if I write a poem, just like you say, and then I have
the words posted on a gigantic billboard. In small print in the bottom
corner of the billboard, I say "Copyright 2018 Chris Angelico. Taking
photographs of this billboard is forbidden.". Do I still own copyright
in the poem? Definitely. Can I stop people from (or sue people for)
taking photos of the billboard? Probably not, although that's one for
the lawyers to argue.

> In one Usenet discussion I published my translation of a Finnish
> Christmas carol. The author of the original lyrics had died more than 70
> years before so that was ok. However, the melody was still under
> copyright so I didn't have a right to *explain* in any direct manner how
> the melody went.
>
> Luckily, someone had posted the song on Youtube so I could provide a
> link (although even that could be considered criminal in some
> jurisdictions).

That's the flip side of copyright: you're taking someone else's
copyrighted material and posting it in public. Since you are not the
author, you do not inherently have the right to do that. There are
various legal permissions (very old works, "fair use", etc), but
absent those, you would be violating copyright.

(Whether linking to a third-party Youtube video is itself a violation
of the original author's copyright is even more complicated. IANAL and
I am not going to even think about how messy that situation could
get.)

> PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very least
> one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first year, €2
> for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.

Why should I have to pay money for the right to own my own creations?
At what point does a creation have to be paid for - do I pay only if I
think that I can make money off it? If I fail to pay, what happens -
are people allowed to completely reuse and remix my work without even
acknowledging me?

And who would you pay that to anyway? The one world government?

Copyright laws and international treaties are there to protect content
creators and encourage creation. They need to have set expiration time
(IMO 50 years is long enough - not "50 years since author's death" but
50 years since publication) after which the work becomes free to use,
but the protections are important and extremely useful. Open source
would not exist without copyright, because it is copyright law that
gives license terms their meaning. Even if your license terms amount
to "do what you like with this but be sure to credit me as the
author", that's only enforceable because of copyright law. If people
had to pay exorbitant rates for the privilege of being properly
credited for their work, theft would completely trump generosity.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Thomas Jollans]

On 08/06/18 14:13, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
>>> Distribution through any means
>>>    other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden
>>> to publish this article in the
>>>    Web, to change URIs of this article into links,    and to
>>> transfer the body without this
>>>    notice, but quotations    of parts in other Usenet posts are
>>> allowed.
>> As discussed previously [1], this arguably means that it's best if you
>> don't even quote his messages if your posts are mirrored on the mailing
>> list (as most people's are).
>>
>> [1].
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-November/728635.html
> 
> The restriction is absurd, and the idea that people will obey the
> restriction in the headers is absurd. If Stefan posts to a newsgroup in
> this day and age, he knows full well that his words will end up on http
> servers somewhere.  He needs to get over it, or stop posting to newsgroups.
> 
> --Ned.

Quite right. Of course it's probably unenforceable, but that's not
really the point.

I have nothing against Stefan. In fact, back when I could (illegally)
see his posts, I quite enjoyed them. However, if he writes in a public
forum like this, he should accept that he's writing in a public forum.
As long as he doesn't, it's only right that he should be banned (from
the list) and ignored (by the few remaining comp.lang.python users).

-- Thomas
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Gene Heskett :
> On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
>> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
>> and is most likely unenforceable.
>
> As the courts have so found when this has come up over the last 30 years. 
> Basically, its just some newly minted lawyer trying to earn his place at 
> the feeding trough.

Copyrights exist whether they are declared or not.

If I publish a poem or, say, a Python application on Usenet, you will
need my permission to distribute it. Of course, its dissemination via
Usenet and remailers is ultimately *me* distributing my work.

In one Usenet discussion I published my translation of a Finnish
Christmas carol. The author of the original lyrics had died more than 70
years before so that was ok. However, the melody was still under
copyright so I didn't have a right to *explain* in any direct manner how
the melody went.

Luckily, someone had posted the song on Youtube so I could provide a
link (although even that could be considered criminal in some
jurisdictions).


Marko

PS IMO copyright laws should be abolished altogether. At the very least
one should pay for copyright protection. One €1 for the first year, €2
for the second, €4 for the third and so on exponentially.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 08 June 2018 08:18:19 Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Ned Batchelder  
wrote:
> > On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> >> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
> >>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
> >>> Distribution through any means
> >>>other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is
> >>> forbidden to publish this article in the
> >>>Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to
> >>> transfer the body without this
> >>>notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts
> >>> are allowed.
> >>
> >> As discussed previously [1], this arguably means that it's best if
> >> you don't even quote his messages if your posts are mirrored on the
> >> mailing list (as most people's are).
> >>
> >> [1].
> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-November/728635.
> >>html
> >
> > The restriction is absurd, and the idea that people will obey the
> > restriction in the headers is absurd. If Stefan posts to a newsgroup
> > in this day and age, he knows full well that his words will end up
> > on http servers somewhere.  He needs to get over it, or stop posting
> > to newsgroups.
>
> Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
> transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
> and is most likely unenforceable.
>
> ChrisA

As the courts have so found when this has come up over the last 30 years. 
Basically, its just some newly minted lawyer trying to earn his place at 
the feeding trough.

It does have a tendency to scare off the copyright violators that can't 
afford a legal dept, pushing them under the bus.

Copyrights, Patents, often interchangeable in civil court, and
having been the victim  (because I was the designated Chief Operator at a 
tv station) of a frivolous patent that attacked every broadcast facility 
in the US, demanding royalties in the 5 digit range per month for 
implementing what the FCC edict said we had to do WRT the EAS system. 

The courts weren't amused. I don't know as any of us ever cut those 
patent troll turkey's a check, but if they did, they were also awarded 
triple damages. I've not heard that name in the press since. Probably 
changed to protect the guilty.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Ned Batchelder  wrote:
> On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>>
>> On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:
>>
>>> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved.
>>> Distribution through any means
>>>other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to
>>> publish this article in the
>>>Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to transfer
>>> the body without this
>>>notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts are
>>> allowed.
>>
>> As discussed previously [1], this arguably means that it's best if you
>> don't even quote his messages if your posts are mirrored on the mailing
>> list (as most people's are).
>>
>> [1].
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-November/728635.html
>
>
> The restriction is absurd, and the idea that people will obey the
> restriction in the headers is absurd. If Stefan posts to a newsgroup in this
> day and age, he knows full well that his words will end up on http servers
> somewhere.  He needs to get over it, or stop posting to newsgroups.

Are news servers guaranteed to carry the X-Copyright header in all
transmissions? If not, the copyright notice isn't part of the message,
and is most likely unenforceable.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Ned Batchelder]

On 6/8/18 2:34 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:

On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:


X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution 
through any means
   other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish 
this article in the
   Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to transfer the 
body without this
   notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts are allowed.

As discussed previously [1], this arguably means that it's best if you
don't even quote his messages if your posts are mirrored on the mailing
list (as most people's are).

[1]. https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-November/728635.html


The restriction is absurd, and the idea that people will obey the 
restriction in the headers is absurd. If Stefan posts to a newsgroup in 
this day and age, he knows full well that his words will end up on http 
servers somewhere.  He needs to get over it, or stop posting to newsgroups.


--Ned.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Thomas Jollans]

On 07/06/18 22:36, Peter Pearson wrote:

> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution 
> through any means
>   other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish 
> this article in the
>   Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to transfer the 
> body without this
>   notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts are allowed.

As discussed previously [1], this arguably means that it's best if you
don't even quote his messages if your posts are mirrored on the mailing
list (as most people's are).

[1]. https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-November/728635.html
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Peter Pearson  wrote:
> Here's the full header, as received by slrn from news.individual.net:
>
> X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution 
> through any means
>   other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish 
> this article in the
>   Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to transfer the 
> body without this
>   notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts are allowed.
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> Archive: no
> X-No-Archive-Readme: "X-No-Archive" is only set, because this prevents some 
> services to mirror the
>   article via the web (HTTP). But Stefan Ram hereby allows to keep this 
> article within a Usenet
>   archive serverwith only NNTP access without any time limitation.

Yeah, if I were a sysadmin carrying this kind of traffic, I'd just
block all those posts rather than risk any sort of legal liability.
Not worth any sort of risk. A simple ban is easy and effective, and
fully compliant with the copyright notice.

(I don't understand this paranoia about HTTP, frankly.)

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Stefan's headers [was:Names and identifiers]

[Peter Pearson]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 01:23:31 + (UTC), Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Disclaimer: Ido not see Stefan's original post. I recall that he has set 
> some sort of header on his posts which means they are not processed by 
> Gmane, but unfortunately I no longer have any of his posts in my cache 
> where I can check.
>
> If anyone else is getting Stefan's posts, can you inspect the full 
> headers and see if there is a relevant header?

Here's the full header, as received by slrn from news.individual.net:

Path: uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Names and identifiers
Date: 6 Jun 2018 18:37:46 GMT
Organization: Stefan Ram
Lines: 26
Expires: 1 Aug 2018 11:59:58 GMT
Message-ID: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de y/fWNNOsUiR8l3NiIdt8QQKv4EmIpqY+4EFRjM4L9WcmK0
X-Copyright: (C) Copyright 2018 Stefan Ram. All rights reserved. Distribution 
through any means
  other than regular usenet channels is forbidden. It is forbidden to publish 
this article in the
  Web, to change URIs of this article into links,and to transfer the 
body without this
  notice, but quotationsof parts in other Usenet posts are allowed.
X-No-Archive: Yes
Archive: no
X-No-Archive-Readme: "X-No-Archive" is only set, because this prevents some 
services to mirror the
  article via the web (HTTP). But Stefan Ram hereby allows to keep this article 
within a Usenet
  archive serverwith only NNTP access without any time limitation.
X-No-Html: yes
Content-Language: en
Xref: uni-berlin.de comp.lang.python:794657
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list