On 8/27/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problem with paying for software, just like I have no
> problem paying to watch a movie or to buy a book. And as much as some
> would like to make it seem, I am not in favor of robbing people's
> homes. I simply oppose the attitude that treats me like a potential
> thief first and a legitimate customer second.
What Ed said.
There are several different debates in this arena, and many issues
touch on more than one of those debates. But they really need to be
dealt with a separate dimensions of a set of similar problems, and
ought to each be resolved separately, while recognizing they
intersect, too.
1. DRM restricts us from access to media: songs, sounds, movies,
documents. Technology has allowed us to place locks on our software
and media that go beyond the restrictions intended by copyright or
patent law or the laws of commerce. As a teen, I made recordings of
music off the radio, and mixed my own tapes. The point of music is not
to enrich the record companies nor even the musicians, but to
communicate, touching on several fundamental human needs. Compensating
an artist for their works is only right. But sharing music - singing
along together - should not be criminal activities. Singing "Happy
Birthday" around a campfire requires a license? I don't think so. We
have a broken system here, and it needs to be fixed.
Singing "Hey, Jude" together on the beach is not the same as "sharing"
an automobile dealershop database management system, either. (The
first sounds like a lot more fun.) The latter is obviously a theft of
services and against the law, no matter how strong or weak the lock on
the software was. Publishing your client's proprietary algorithms or
code created as a work for hire is a well-established violation of
trade secret and copyright laws. Businesses have a right to protect
themselves from theft. Consumers have a right to expect products will
work as they expect. Sometimes these choices are in direct conflict. I
think that's where WGA stands.
Years ago, I bought a Santana album that turned out not to be a CD of
music, but CD that would play on stand-alone music players or a
Windows program that would only run on a Windows OS (after installing
software to monitor and report back the use of the music). The
recording company argued that since they had not used the common CD
marketing icon on the cover art, a consumer could not expect to get a
standard audio CD. That is DRM gone bad.
I would respectfully suggest that this topic is NotFox, NotTechnical,
it's political and legal and therefore OT.
2. The U.S. Constituion, following on from British law, granted
authors and inventors exclusive license to print their compositions or
manufacture their inventions as an economic incentive to those
efforts, solely as a benefit to society as a whole, limited in time
and scope, and leaving the details to Congress. The 14-year "founder's
copyright" has been distorted by Congress ("the best politicians money
can buy") into a perpetual money machine for corporations, while
authors, musicians and inventors lose the incentive originally
intentioned. (Did you know that musicians working for record labels no
longer own copyright to their own songs? That's obscene.)
I think copyright law in the US is a bad joke, and I am working with
and supporting organizations that are working through the system to
change it.
This topic, too, is OT. It's political and legal, not techical.
3. Open Source vs. Closed Source. Open Source is not a technology, and
it is not a marketing plan and it is not an economic model. It's a
software development and distribution model. It's a means of
developing high-quality software. Proprietary software is software
secured by copyright law, patent law (feh! another rant) and contract
between producer and consumer. It is difficult to determine if the two
can be compared in many metrics: software quality, reliability,
suitability to purpose, or "total cost" but there is nothing keeping
the two from existing in a dynamic harmony that is both competitive
and positive. I believe each "side" (and I don't really think there
are sides, that's a simplication) goad each other to achieve more.
Win, win.
I think this topic is On-Topic, though really NotFox. Talking about
software development models, the similarity of the Fox communities to
the Open Source communities, the openness and the sharing in both of
them, and the efforts of open (though perhaps not Open Source)
developments like SednaX are On-Topic, though really only meta-about
Fox.
4. Software Patents: as mentioned above, a separate discussion, but
again in my opinion a gross distortion of the intention and spirit of
the founding fathers. But at best, NF and likely, knowing this crowd,
more often OT.
I'm on vacation this week, so will try my best not to participate in
the ongoing flame wars. You boys keep the fires burning while I'm
away...
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
