On Monday 28 December 2009 14:55:17 Praveen A wrote: > 2009/12/27 jtd <[email protected]>: > > To clarify Pirate bay did fight in the courts against the charge > > of abetting copyright violations and earning from promoting such > > violations (ad revenue). Also Pirate bay was taken to court for > > abetting distribution of Music and video, not software (afaik). > > They did not chose the fight as a protest.
No. They had no choice, having become a victim of a stupid law (imo). PS. I am aware of all the accusations / legal history about the pirate bay promoters that appeared whenever the music corps got bad press / blogs. > > > This one is about circumventing DRM - exercising one's right to > > fair use -, not about redistribution or abetting redistribution - > > as the case with Pirate Bay. > > Nevertheless, a case of committing DMCA-like copyright violation > and bringing it to court as protest. True. And fully deserving our support. Just pointing out the difference between fair use and redistribution. > > My usage is irrespective of what M$ does or does not, simply > > because the violator deliberately chooses to deprive someone > > without the slightest hesitation. These guys are as bad as > > various GPL copyright violators. The underlying thought process > > is exactly the same - profiting from somebody else's labour > > without permission - and IMO such types will not hesitate to > > violate the GPL. > > My contention was exaggerating the offense. Equating copyright > violation to depriving others You are in doubt about this?. Please note that software is "licenced" not "sold" and every time you distribute in violation you deprive the copyright owner of revenue. The law now treats CR piracy far worse (costs= several thousand times the value of software / music etc + jail) than robbery (return of goods + some costs + jail). Infact robbing a CD from the store will earn you far less monetary penalties than a download!!! > or attacking ships. That is the line > proprietary software makers and media companies want to promote. I haughtily endorse them in digging their graves. I pray they sue all and sundry and hit the press on the frontpage. > A copyright violation is simple a copyright violation. In addition, > it would be better compare apples to apples and not apples > (knowledge/software/digital works) to oranges (physical property). To me it seems you are confusing the two by saying that the copyright holder is holding his copy and therefore is not deprived of anything. Precisely the same argument may be presented in violating the gpl. The copyright holder has HIS code, and is not deprived of anything AND moreover he is now demanding MY code against my desire to give, merely because i added my code, without him having to play any role at all, especially since he is giving away his stuff anyway. So to me trying to be wishywashy is like providing ammo to the future GPL violator. P.S. I known that you understand the underlying philosophy and are debating terminology. > There is much difference and one of the basis for our argument to > treat software as knowledge different from other physical objects > when it comes to patents is strongly based on such a difference. Fully agree that there is a vast difference between knowledge and it's discovey and physical object and it's invention. But how that equates to going soft on misusing someone else's stuff is still beyond me. Personally i think that the pirate software user is plain stupid, copying trash, and music / book / whatever writers etc are behaving like luddites by clinging to an obsolete business revenue model of content distribution. However that does not in anyway diminish the impact of violating the owners terms of use. > I would much like to promote the idea of software being knowledge > than a physical product. YMMV. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
