On 6/23/06, Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But apparently we're all pirates and can't be
> trusted with devices that actually talk to each other.
A pirate commits armed robbery on the high seas.
Copyright infringement is wrong, assuming one can figure out what is
and is not "fair use", but is hardly comparable to armed robbery.
I don't know about you guys, but if someone takes IP we release for
this project under GPL and puts it into their own chip without either
paying for it or releasing the rest of their design under GPL, I'm
going feel personally insulted and cheated. Not to say that I don't
expect a certain amount of piracy, but the one idea behind releasing
it under GPL is that you CAN try it before you buy it. The instant
someone else starts making money from our work here without us
benefitting from it, that's highway robbery. It's theft not only from
those who worked on it directly but from the community as a whole.
How I feel about someone downloading songs from the internet depends
on how they dealt with their downloads later. Were they trying to
find out what they liked? Did they delete the MP3s they didn't like?
Did they buy legit copies of the ones they did like? The fact that
the RIAA is evil does complicate matters. But I also don't pirate
Microsoft stuff. To some people, they feel justified in pirating
commercial software on the grounds that proprietary software or some
given vendor is evil. I don't. If I want it badly enough, I'm going
to pay for it; mostly I just avoid it entirely. To me, copyright is
our friend, because it's what protects our GPL'd works from being
pirated by companies that want to benefit from our work without giving
back to the community. That copyright law doesn't apply only when I
want it to and not apply when it's inconvenient.
I've never bought into those arguments that it's okay to copy digital
material because it doesn't cost any extra just to make a copy. Oh, I
agree that it's hard to put in the same class as, say, a Fabergee egg
or something else with tangible presence. But the work and
craftsmanship that goes into developing a good piece of software
should be shown no less respect than what went into a piece of art.
Being easier to copy doesn't enter into it. Should we be allowed to
make and distribute as many copies as we like of a Picasso painting?
It was easy to copy! Just scan and print! Microsoft Office is easy
to copy, just like your favorite They Might Be Giants songs. But then
so is OpenOffice, and we should prevent people from abusing the rights
of the people who developed it.
As much as I am bothered by copyright violation, however, I hate DRM
more, and I'm a very strong believer in fair-use. I'm very happy that
iTunes lets you listen to a 30-second snippet of a song before you
have to pay for it, and if I buy a song, I damn well better be able to
burn compilations of my favorites so I can play them in the car.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
