Well... [Replies below]
Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla wrote:
Many, many misconceptions about copyright in this post... *sigh*
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:19:09PM +0800, Dean Michael C. Berris wrote:
Take a musician who works his behind off just to earn a living by selling his products (musical compositions, etc.) and think how he would feel if he knew that the sale of his products didn't benefit him. It just wouldn't be fair don't you think?
It isn't a question of fairness. The public wants there to be a lot of good music to listen to, and also it wants this music to be available at minimal cost. So the government institutes a system of copyright for music, that says that for a limited time the musician can have exclusive use of his creations so that he can find a way to make money off his creations by restricting their use only to those who can pay him a license for their use.
The government is at fault then? Yes, let's just blame the government because PEOPLE rip the musicians off by making illegal copies of the music musicians create. The public should be responsible enough to recognize that there are laws by which we agree to abide by when we pledge allegiance to the country. The public should also be respectful -- as humans -- to fellow humans in common courtesy, which is basically in terms of fairness.
If it's not a question about fairness, then I don't know what piracy and copyright is all about then.
It all really boils down to fairness. You can't blame the big company who has a payroll to take care of and trade "secrets" if they want to protect their products from being sold without them profiting from the sale. And basically, that's the same idea behind the creation of the copyright and the license agreements.
Wrong. It is because the government, whose mandate is to protect the public interest, has deemed it more beneficial for the public to yield some of its liberties (remember that copyright is inherently a restriction on freedom of speech) in order that the company may add value to the economy by creating their copyrightable works.
Copyright is more just like your deed to property -- what is yours is yours, and shall be the owner UNTIL you 'consciously yield' your rights to that property. My copyright on Free Software I write does not restrict you from copying the source code and modifying it -- but you may not take the rights to the software as owner of the copyright to the software. Only in the event that I yield my copyright to the software to you may you claim that the software I wrote is yours (or technically copyrighted to you).
I don't see how copyright in itself is a restriction on the freedom of speech. Maybe an NDA is a restriction on the freedom of speech, which when notarized is considered a legal binding document -- but when we sign or agree to it, it goes into full effect anyway.
However I look at it though, piracy is just wrong.
It is not really wrong in the moral sense. Only wrong in the sense of
illegal. Malo in prohibido is the legal term. The real problem with unauthorized copying is that it removes part of the incentive for people
to create useful content, and that is in many cases a bad thing.
Piracy -- the concept -- in my view is still wrong. And I'm not just talking about software piracy. Piracy ~ theft. See the cheap immitations of the branded shoes being sold here the Philippines made from some neighboring southeast asian countries -- that's piracy in effect. Think about it, someone using your "design" and not doing a very good job at copying -- and even putting your brand on it -- and selling it for at MOST 50% of your original price on the market. What's worse, is that the sale does not benefit you monetarily.
I agree with your point about killing the incentive to be creative when making unauthorized copy.
Is copying a Debian GNU/Linux CD piracy? NO because it specifically says in the license (GNU GPL) that you agree to that you may do so.
To be strict about it, copying Debian installers is not unauthorized copying because there exists a license that specifically authorizes me to make copies. I agreed to it simply by the act of making a copy, because nothing but the license authorized me to make such a copy.
Which is what I meant... It might have sounded/read differently but my thoughts exactly. :D
Now is copying and proliferating/selling an installer of a piece of software piracy? Yes, because it essentially means you are not abiding by the license you agreed to that accompanies the installer
What license? I was not given a license for the software in the first place, much less agreed to any, meaning I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COPY IT AT ALL. I am therefore in violation of copyright law.
Let me rephrase: Now is copying and proliferating/selling an installer [whose copy you bought and essentially have in posession a license regarding the use of the software installer in question] or a piece of software [you did not create and have no ownership of] piracy? ...
-- which is in essence is taking for your own and having your way with something which is not yours.
It is not taking for my own and having my way with something that isn't mine, nevertheless. More of the IP propaganda at work here. I am violating laws that a government created in order to motivate the person/organization which was behind the act of creation to keep doing what they are doing, which is bad enough, but that is hardly theft as you imply. Chances are, I would never have gotten the installer at all and done without it instead had it not been made available as cheaply as it had been from the illicit channels.
So you're now saying making proprietary software is 'bad'?
I love the idea behind free/open source software. I love the concept and I believe that it's very very humane. It's brilliant. However, I do not see it as "good" as opposed to proprietary software as "bad" -- I do think that the idea [FOSS] is better as opposed to proprietary software.
The installer may be yours (media), but the software in it (assuming
it is proprietary and there is explicit documentation that come with
it regarding the use licensing agreement) is not -- and since the
agreement does not allow you to copy and/or sell the product without
a prior written legal agreement with the owner(s) of the product, you are in breach of a legal contract.
I am not in breach of any contract. I never signed any contract. Since I wasn't granted a license by the copyright holder, what I have done is violate copyright law, and am liable for criminal penalties under it.
Posession of a 'legally obtained' software installer media such as CD's, floppy disks, compressed installers, among others and agreeing consciously to a license agreement binds you to a legal contract. Pressing an "I Agree" button during the installation of a piece of software such as Windows binds you to a legal contract between you (the end user) and Microsoft who has a copyright on the software you just agreed to use.
Actually, opening the box containing the installer already has legal implications which already binds you to a legal contract. An "Agreement Between Two Parties" if you like how that sounds better.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I have tried to do some in-depth research into this subject of copyright law, and see that some of your statements propagate dangerous misconceptions about this whole string of legal machinery which is complex enough without the misleading "intellectual property" propaganda that you seem to have inadvertently swallowed.
So you mean saying that piracy is wrong is an effect of swallowing the IP propaganda pill? If that's so, then I might just have swallowed the pill. But I stand by my statement and belief that piracy is wrong. Illegal or otherwise, it shouldn't be done UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for FOSS. But enforcing copyright laws and abiding by the terms and conditions of use accompanying ANY product you purchase/use is something I still believe in.
Chill. :D
-- Dean Michael Berris ymid: mikhailberis [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
