subject:"\[OT\] Intelectual Property Law"

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:55:14 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
  
  Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
  over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
  reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
  cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
  who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
 
 The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a 
 small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their 
 creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered 

So? If the creators choose to transfer some or all of their rights to
others, that's their right. They are perfectly free to retain all
rights and self-publish. As you note, this is vastly easier today then
it ever has been, due to the internet and the legal climate.

 to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting 
 published. How many others did not make it?

Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
(and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?

 The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to 
 publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content 
 consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly 
 proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and 
 distributing it.

Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value
is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs,
they're free not to purchase the works.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807093954.f364cbd5.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:45:56 -0400
Brad Alexander stor...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
  On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
 
  Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
  over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
  reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
  cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
  who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
 
  The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
  small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
  creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
  to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
  published. How many others did not make it?
 
 Agreed. I remember the hype about Napster in the late 90s. They did a
 study of how much the artist got from a $0.99 track. It turned out to
 be 1/10,000 of a cent.
 
 And there have been several cases where the labels have come down on
 the artists for releasing their own music on the internets. One was
 the Beastie Boys. They were threatened with legal action. The other
 was the group of artists that made the megadownload video/music. BMG
 was (illegally) going in to youtube and claiming copyright and pulling
 the ad down.

The artists are, and always have been, perfectly free to retain all
rights to their works and try to publish them themselves. It's entirely
their decision to sign away some or all rights to a publisher. To take
advantage of the publishers' advances (which, IIUC, are often never
recouped by the studios) and promotional investments and then, upon
success, to turn around and complain that they don't like the terms of
their contracts doesn't seem entirely fair.

I do know that the law does recognize that some contracts are
inherently unfair (in the US, contracts of adhesion, etc.), but in the
general case, I lean libertarian - if you don't like the terms of the
contract, don't sign it; either search for a better one, or strike out
on your own.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807094457.72f71a30.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:59:08 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mi, 01 aug 12, 20:23:35, Celejar wrote:
  On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:45:27 +0300
  Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   On Mi, 01 aug 12, 00:59:29, Yaro Kasear wrote:
On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you 
give
are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
copies.
IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies 
that
basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain 
dogma?
  
  [The line to which you are responding is mine, not Yaro's.]
 
 Yes I know, and I thought the levels of quoting show that, or don't 
 they?

They do - but the first quote in your message was Yaro's. I guess you
decided to respond to a quote of mine as cited in his email, instead of
responding directly to my email. In such a case, I generally delete the
first name in the chain, but I admit that I don't know if that's the
Right Way To Do It.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807094711.e73ff992.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
 Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
 legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the
 value is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their
 costs, they're free not to purchase the works.

They don't purchase the works: those are abstractions.  They purchase
copies.  Yes, this is nitpicking, but in this context the distinction is
important.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zk66232h@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
 ...I lean libertarian...

So do I, which is the basis of my criticism of copyright.

 ...if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign it...

Right.  If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to
make additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they
agree not to do so.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vcgu22l0@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:23:50 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Celejar writes:
  Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
  legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the
  value is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their
  costs, they're free not to purchase the works.
 
 They don't purchase the works: those are abstractions.  They purchase
 copies.  Yes, this is nitpicking, but in this context the distinction is
 important.

Yes, my language was imprecise.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807111542.9b9c5852.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:34:19 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Celejar writes:
  ...I lean libertarian...
 
 So do I, which is the basis of my criticism of copyright.
 
  ...if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign it...
 
 Right.  If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to
 make additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they
 agree not to do so.

But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
libertarian thought. I don't need a contract with you to prevent you
from stealing my property, and intellectual property law, IIUC,
stipulates that IP is treated somewhat (although certainly not
entirely) like tangible property.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807112159.30d9a721.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

I wrote:
 If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
 additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
 not to do so.

Celejar writes:

 But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
 libertarian thought.

And copies are property.  Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
so, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
are my property?  Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?

 I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
 property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
 treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
 property.

But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property.  It is a bundle of
intangible rights created by the state.  If I steal your KR first
edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured.  If I
make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
deprived of nothing and injured in no way.  Nonetheless, they have (and
will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
me to pay them substantial damages should I do so.  How is this sort
of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
compatible with libertarian values?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obmm1y3o@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:11 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
not to do so.

Celejar writes:

But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
libertarian thought.

And copies are property.

Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
so

Ohoh! Many contracts in many countries are null and void only.

, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
are my property? Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?

I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
property.

But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property. It is a bundle of
intangible rights created by the state. If I steal your KR first
edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured. If I
make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
deprived of nothing and injured in no way. Nonetheless, they have (and
will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
me to pay them substantial damages should I do so. How is this sort
of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
compatible with libertarian values?
--
John Hasler

I did not follow this discussion, but read this email.
Similar discussions are from time to time in Linux mailing lists for
artists.

In Germany we e.g. have the so called Urheberrecht (copyright) and the
Vervielfältigungsrecht (right of reproduction). The copyright is
completely untouchable. It's impossible to cede or lose the copyright.
Any idea always will be intellectual property of the creator. The only
thing you can talk about in Germany is the right of reproduction, IOW
somebody working for a company who has got a good idea for that company,
always will be the copyright owner, but he don't has any charges to use
it private, to make money, or even to talk about the idea, to put it
very simple.
In Germany we e.g. have collecting societies, e.g. the GEMA. A friend
can't understand, he doesn't believe me, that we can't make free radio
and play songs, even if we know the bands and even when they allow us to
play their music. The band is not allowed to give us the permission, if
they chose the GEMA as collecting society. In Germany they sue
kindergartens singing children songs in public and the fines are higher
than high, such a kindergarten will be on the rocks, it's not only a few
hundert Euros, It's much more money.
If you take a look at the creative commons for different countries,
you'll see, that there is not one universal, international creative
commons.

NOTE! Very often a contract with agreements of all parties is
impossible, regarding to the laws of a country, to chosen licenses,
resp. collecting societies.

The best thing is to be an anarchist!
Talking about ethics and law at the same time is irrational ;). Laws are
inventions to make rich people richer, to protect the power hungry spawn
of fiend. Road traffic regulations are prudential reasons, I'm talking
about laws, such as the right of reproduction.

This isn't the world we are living in:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/My-Little-Pony-my-little-pony-256751_1280_1024.jpg

Regards,
Ralf

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344358119.1256.46.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

Ralf writes:
 The best thing is to be an anarchist!

Anarchy is impossible.  Some jerk will always jump up and crown himself
king.  Government is not a necessary evil: it is an inevitable one.  The
best we can hope for is to minimize it.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3xa1up6@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-07 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:39:54, Celejar wrote:
 
  to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting 
  published. How many others did not make it?
 
 Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
 couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
 (and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
 self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
 who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?
 
Both, but probably the former is more common.

  The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to 
  publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content 
  consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly 
  proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and 
  distributing it.
 
 Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
 legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value
 is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs,
 they're free not to purchase the works.
 
I did not question the legitimacy, but the future-proof-ness of a 
business relying on distributing copies.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-08-07 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:47:11, Celejar wrote:
 
 They do - but the first quote in your message was Yaro's. I guess you
 decided to respond to a quote of mine as cited in his email, instead of
 responding directly to my email. In such a case, I generally delete the
 first name in the chain, but I admit that I don't know if that's the
 Right Way To Do It.

But I was responding to Yaro as well, otherwise I would have written two 
separate e-mails.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

Andrei writes:
 I did not question the legitimacy, but the future-proof-ness of a
 business relying on distributing copies.

Right: these are orthogonal issues.  Whether one views the current
copyright regime as legitimate or not, I don't think it has a future.
The work of the publishing industry --making and distributing copies--
simply no longer needs doing.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw7y1sp7@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:24 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
 Ralf writes:
  The best thing is to be an anarchist!
 
 Anarchy is impossible.  Some jerk will always jump up and crown himself
 king.  Government is not a necessary evil: it is an inevitable one.  The
 best we can hope for is to minimize it.

I agree, but being an anarchist still is possible ;), sometimes we need
to brake laws, so that some years later the laws will be changed by the
politicians. When I was young I had a criminal record for being a
pacifist, 20 years later it's allowed to be a pacifist in Germany,
because many people said no!, I wasn't the only one.

Regarding to the German Intelectual Property Laws we don't need o risk
our necks, we only need to vote the correct democratic party,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party , but it ships also with some
drawbacks to vote a party of children, OTOH ll parties are bad and they
at least think about Intelectual Property Laws, IMO very important
nowadays.

2 Cents,
Ralf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344362802.1256.67.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:11:07 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 I wrote:
  If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make
  additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree
  not to do so.
 
 Celejar writes:
 
  But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in
  libertarian thought.
 
 And copies are property.  Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do
 so, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which
 are my property?  Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation
 of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property?
 
  I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my
  property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is
  treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible
  property.
 
 But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property.  It is a bundle of
 intangible rights created by the state.  If I steal your KR first

Natural law-esque inalienable rights notwithstanding, _all_ property
rights are creations of the state. I understand that ordinary property
rights are rooted in tangible objects, while IP rights aren't, but it
is by no means self-evident to me that that's a critical difference.

 edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured.  If I
 make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is
 deprived of nothing and injured in no way.  Nonetheless, they have (and
 will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force
 me to pay them substantial damages should I do so.  How is this sort
 of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition,
 compatible with libertarian values?

Injury to someone else is not the sine-qua-non for the prohibition of
something. If I want to trespass on your property when you aren't using
it and I'll be sure to cause no damage, do you have the right to stop
me?

And I don't agree with the common formulations that IP law creates
monopolies and prevents competition. You are perfectly free to
create your own work and compete with me for the same audiences and
dollars; the only thing you can't do is copy _my_ work.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807183833.7b2efb63.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:43:54 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:39:54, Celejar wrote:
  
   to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting 
   published. How many others did not make it?
  
  Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
  couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
  (and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
  self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
  who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?
  
 Both, but probably the former is more common.

Okay, but the former problem has absolutely no relevance to the current
discussion, about the legitimacy / practicality of IP law.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807184216.8f9d3aa7.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:45:33 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:47:11, Celejar wrote:
  
  They do - but the first quote in your message was Yaro's. I guess you
  decided to respond to a quote of mine as cited in his email, instead of
  responding directly to my email. In such a case, I generally delete the
  first name in the chain, but I admit that I don't know if that's the
  Right Way To Do It.
 
 But I was responding to Yaro as well, otherwise I would have written two 
 separate e-mails.

Okay, sorry.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807184344.b352f416.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
 You are perfectly free to create your own work and compete with me for
 the same audiences and dollars; the only thing you can't do is copy
 _my_ work.

Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boim1f0e@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 18:03 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
 Celejar writes:
  You are perfectly free to create your own work and compete with me for
  the same audiences and dollars; the only thing you can't do is copy
  _my_ work.
 
 Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.

@ Celejar: Thus the human race is in competition, every single human
with each other?! Instead of sharing knowledge, we prefer to show who
has got the biggest dick?! Wow, I star believing we are from god and
that we aren't apes, since apes aren't that idiotic. Any women here with
a dick? No? Let's go to church and ignore ethics, truth, everything
good. Evil is the new good!

Barf!

Apologize, but I can't stand that old worldview. I only know people who
steal ideas of other people and than claim bullshit like You are
perfectly free to create your own work and compete with me.

People who have good own ideas, again and again, don't fear to share
their ideas for free. Usually thieves fear to share their stolen ideas.

I don't claim that you, Celejar, are one of them! Don't get me wrong!

I just claim that your model died wit the dinos, a long, long time
before we were born.

Regards,
Ralf



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344382471.1248.34.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law


  Celejar writes: the only thing you can't do is copy

Btw. I'm also against copying, if somebody makes knowledge available for
free (as in bear) and other folks copy it, close the free knowledge
and take money!

I don't like money! I prefer exchange and altruism. Yes, bankers have
nothing to offer, they should die!!! Dealing with food to make money,
while humans die because they've got nothing to eat. dealing with
knowledge, it's a shame!




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344382980.1248.41.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:03:29 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Celejar writes:
  You are perfectly free to create your own work and compete with me for
  the same audiences and dollars; the only thing you can't do is copy
  _my_ work.
 
 Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.

Okay, but this is veering close to sophistry; I can also say that any
private ownership of property is monopolistic, since it gives the owner
a monopoly on the use of some particular piece of property.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807212928.d32dc869.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

I wrote:
 Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.

Celajar writes:
 Okay, but this is veering close to sophistry; I can also say that any
 private ownership of property is monopolistic, since it gives the
 owner a monopoly on the use of some particular piece of property.

Monopolies are commoplace and not, in and of themselves, necessarily
either illegal or immoral.  Nonetheless copyright creates monopolies
where none would otherwise exist: that is its purpose.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vcguywtu@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:52:13 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 I wrote:
  Thus you have a monopoly on the reproduction of copies of your work.
 
 Celajar writes:
  Okay, but this is veering close to sophistry; I can also say that any
  private ownership of property is monopolistic, since it gives the
  owner a monopoly on the use of some particular piece of property.
 
 Monopolies are commoplace and not, in and of themselves, necessarily
 either illegal or immoral.  Nonetheless copyright creates monopolies
 where none would otherwise exist: that is its purpose.

I can say the same about the very institution of private property; it
creates a monopoly (only I have the legal right to use a particular
piece of property) where none would otherwise exist, and that is its
very purpose.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120807231106.c99e9783.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 23:09 -0400, Celejar wrote:
 I do think we may have a language barrier here.

Indeed, my fault, since my English is broken. If you and I would try to
detect a consensus, we could hire a translator, but cooperation between
countries seems to be impossible. If we won't have patents and hidden
knowledge, we perhaps would have overcome poverty etc., but less people
are interested.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344397273.1248.160.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Celejar

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Celejar writes:
  ...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
  unreasonable for it to charge per copy?
 
 It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
 copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge for
 copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
 incur no costs and none of their property is involved?  If the producers
 don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
 from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
 what copying I can do.  Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
 copies of objects that I own?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.

 Doesn't really matter in the long run, though.  Now that the marginal
 cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die.  It was only really
 practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
 that enforcement was feasible.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802094159.752b0674.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Brad Alexander

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

Celejar writes:
...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
unreasonable for it to charge per copy?

It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge for
copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
incur no costs and none of their property is involved? If the producers
don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
what copying I can do. Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
copies of objects that I own?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.

The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
about intellectual property which, if I am understanding correctly
(and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
8-track...Then on CD. Or, what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
it was out on VHS, then LaserDisc, then DVD, now Blu-ray. If it is
about the intellectual property, why do I have to buy the *same* IP
every time the industry decides to change formats? In theory, if IP
is the item with cost associated with it, if I have paid for it once,
I should have a right to it regardless of what format it is in.

It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
cooked...Okay, now it is on a plate, so that is an extra charge, and
so forth.

Am I wrong here? (I'm not saying they'll change, just that it is a
specious argument)
--b

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAKmZw+Z8ujq4Pt+SeQpaOKDMmxauhsYFzeGrO4atHA=vq4z...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread John Hasler

Brad Alexander writes:
 The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
 about intellectual property which, if I am understanding correctly
 (and I believe I am) is the *content*.

Intellectual property is a right established by statute.  In the case
of copyright it is the exclusive right to create copies of a protected
work.  Under copyright law a copy is a _tangible object_.

 ...why do I have to buy the *same* IP every time the industry decides
 to change formats?

You didn't buy the IP.  That would mean that you acquired the exclusive
right to make copies.  You bought a _copy_: a tangible thing.  The
copyright owner retained the right to create more copies[1].

It's all about copies and the creation and distribution thereof.  Copies
are _things_.  That includes a copy on your hard disk: the disk is a
tangible thing and the copy is that portion of it on which the copy
resides.  IP is about abstract rights.  When you acquire a copy of a
work you do not acquire any of those rights: just the thing.  Quit
thinking about copies as immaterial abstractions.



[1] The copyright owner may or may not have granted you some limited
rights to make copies under some limited circumstances as part of a
contract entered into when you purchased the copy from them.  In
addition, under some circumstances the USA copyright statute grants you
limited rights to make copies.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zk6d8g5i@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Slavko

Ahoj,

Dňa Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:00:26 -0400 Brad Alexander stor...@gmail.com
napísal:

 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
  John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:
 
  Celejar writes:
   ...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is
   is unreasonable for it to charge per copy?
 
  It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
  copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge
  for copies other people make from copies those people own when the
  producers incur no costs and none of their property is involved?  If
  the producers don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me
  they can refrain from selling to me or condition the sale on
  contractual terms that limit what copying I can do.  Why should I be
  forbidden by statute to create copies of objects that I own?
 
  Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
  over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
  reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
  cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
  who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
 
 The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
 about intellectual property which, if I am understanding correctly
 (and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
 So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
 argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
 teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
 8-track...Then on CD. Or, what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
 which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
 it was out on VHS, then LaserDisc, then DVD, now Blu-ray. If it is
 about the intellectual property, why do I have to buy the *same* IP
 every time the industry decides to change formats? In theory, if  IP
 is the item with cost associated with it, if I have paid for it once,
 I should have a right to it regardless of what format it is in.
 
 It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
 you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
 cooked...Okay, now it is on a plate, so that is an extra charge, and
 so forth.

Nice examples :-)

But consider this: the right about intelectual property is in mean
money property. It gives to one the right to take money from others. And
moneys are not tool (as are somebody telling), but money are target in
todays world.

When i was young (before cca 25-30 years), somebody tell me that money are
bridge between work (job) and food. It is still right, but no everybody
know this...

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn English


On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:

 The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
 about intellectual property which, if I am understanding correctly
 (and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.

I claim there's a lot more to it than that. And intellectual property 
is a misnomer.

 So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
 argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
 teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
 8-track...Then on CD.

 why do I have to buy the *same* IP
 
 every time the industry decides to change formats?

In my case, let's consider Dave Brubeck's album where they were playing 
around with time signatures. I don't remember the name, but it was the one 
with Take Five on it. When I bought it in my teens, the only format was 
vinyl disc. Then a few years later, it came out on CD. I bought that too. A 
friend of mine brought out the same argument you do.

How much would you pay, I asked him, for a 1:1 dub of the 15 ips master tape 
of that disk? No surface noise, no turntable rumble, less wow  flutter, lower 
harmonic distortion, better frequency response, etc. 

Oh, yeah, he said.

If I buy an audio cassette of something, I've paid for the content. It seems 
reasonable to me that I have the right to make a copy of what I bought with 
machinery I own. But if I don't have access to a higher quality version of the 
music, and/or I want somebody else to make the copy, I'm going to have to pay 
something for it.

 what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
 which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
 it was out on VHS,

You could still watch it in BetaMax until your BM player died. And VHS barely 
worked 
anyway. You were better off with the BetaMax.

 then LaserDisc,

LaserDisc was a better format than either of the tape formats. And you still 
had 
your BetaMax version to watch.

 then DVD, now Blu-ray.

Both technical improvements (if you don't mind the DRM and FBI warnings). And 
you 
didn't have to buy either if you didn't want to. But if you did, you got a 
better 
version of the movie (longer lasting medium, higher resolution, takes up less 
space 
in your living room, etc.)

Now, there oughta be a way to pay for just the improvements if you have an 
earlier 
version already, but our masters have decided not to provide such. It would be 
a 
real mess to implement anyway, and it likely wouldn't turn out any cheaper, 
what with 
all the bookkeeping and stuff...

 It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
 you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
 cooked.

Is Safeway a better cook than you are? Then pay them for the labor and 
utilities and 
tools needed to cook it. Is your friend a better cook? Then invite him/her over 
to 
share the dinner. Otherwise, cook it yourself.

 Am I wrong here?

A little bit. The issue isn't named well enough to see the whole picture. 

Am I wrong here?

-- 
Glenn English
hand-wrapped from my Apple Mail




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/4c6c053c-9873-4e61-8e8c-bb98ec819...@slsware.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread John Hasler

Glenn writes:
 If I buy an audio cassette of something, I've paid for the content.

No.  You've paid for the audio cassette.

 It seems reasonable to me that I have the right to make a copy of what
 I bought with machinery I own.

I agree.  The law does not.  Making copies of the work [1] is the
exclusive right of the copyright owner.

 ...but our masters have decided not to provide such.

They are not your masters.  You don't need their stuff.  Make your own
or get it from people who share your values.



[1] A work, in copyright law, is the abstraction that a copy is a
physical embodiment of.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vch185b1@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
 
 Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
 over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
 reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
 cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
 who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.

The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a 
small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their 
creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered 
to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting 
published. How many others did not make it?

The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to 
publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content 
consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly 
proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and 
distributing it.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-08-02 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Mi, 01 aug 12, 20:23:35, Celejar wrote:
 On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:45:27 +0300
 Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Mi, 01 aug 12, 00:59:29, Yaro Kasear wrote:
   On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
   On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
   Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:
   
   On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
   Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
   money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
   copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
   are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
   copies.
   IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
   basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
   Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?
 
 [The line to which you are responding is mine, not Yaro's.]

Yes I know, and I thought the levels of quoting show that, or don't 
they?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Celejar

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:25:22 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

...

 They are not your masters.  You don't need their stuff.  Make your own
 or get it from people who share your values.

This is dogma. There is a great deal of software, and certainly other
cultural material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.
What does that mean, anyway? Is it really reasonable to refuse to read
all books that have not been released under a FLOSS license?

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802185036.61c02aa1.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread John Hasler

Celejar writes:
 This is dogma.

It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
makes the publishers his masters.

 There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
 material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
 equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.

Do as you will.  The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.
You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).

 Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
 released under a FLOSS license?

It is evidently feasible to not read at all.  I'm sure you have
neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4ro993v@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Doug


On 08/02/2012 11:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Celejarcele...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
John Haslerjhas...@newsguy.com  wrote:


Celejar writes:

...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
unreasonable for it to charge per copy?

It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge for
copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
incur no costs and none of their property is involved?  If the producers
don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
what copying I can do.  Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
copies of objects that I own?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.

The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
about intellectual property which, if I am understanding correctly
(and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
8-track...Then on CD. Or, what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
it was out on VHS, then LaserDisc, then DVD, now Blu-ray. If it is
about the intellectual property, why do I have to buy the *same* IP
every time the industry decides to change formats? In theory, if  IP
is the item with cost associated with it, if I have paid for it once,
I should have a right to it regardless of what format it is in.

It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
cooked...Okay, now it is on a plate, so that is an extra charge, and
so forth.

Am I wrong here? (I'm not saying they'll change, just that it is a
specious argument)
--b



If you want to copy your beta-max recording to a blu-ray disk
for your own use, that's fair usage, and no violation of the
copyright.  However, if you SELL the copy (and keep the
original) that's a violation for which you could be prosecuted.
You would be making money off of somebody else's work, and
that's a definite no-no!

--doug

--
Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. 
--A.M. Greeley


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/501b131d.7040...@optonline.net

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Glenn English


On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:17 PM, John Hasler wrote:

 It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
 makes the publishers his masters.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I wasn't thinking that 
Disney is my master. I was thinking of lawyers and politicians -- 
the people who make our laws, and who run the police and jails.

You're right. I don't need Disney, but the people I was talking 
about can be a real PITA...

However, Disney does have total control over things they own and 
have created. Just like I do over stuff I create. 

-- 
Glenn English
hand-wrapped from my Apple Mail




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/5b3b64da-f1ca-4202-b9f8-e97a1331f...@slsware.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Brad Alexander

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:

The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
published. How many others did not make it?

Agreed. I remember the hype about Napster in the late 90s. They did a
study of how much the artist got from a $0.99 track. It turned out to
be 1/10,000 of a cent.

And there have been several cases where the labels have come down on
the artists for releasing their own music on the internets. One was
the Beastie Boys. They were threatened with legal action. The other
was the group of artists that made the megadownload video/music. BMG
was (illegally) going in to youtube and claiming copyright and pulling
the ad down.

--b

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/cakmzw+zxkwomahcivgqyx8437hg-mzmrmghtoygvv4+jqex...@mail.gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Celejar

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:17:56 -0500
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:

 Celejar writes:
  This is dogma.
 
 It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
 makes the publishers his masters.

Fair enough.

  There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
  material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
  equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.
 
 Do as you will.  The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.

Quite true.

 You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).

Agreed.

  Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
  released under a FLOSS license?
 
 It is evidently feasible to not read at all.  I'm sure you have
 neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.

True.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120802210906.e5e93d35.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-02 Thread Philip Ashmore


On 03/08/12 02:09, Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:17:56 -0500
John Haslerjhas...@newsguy.com  wrote:


Celejar writes:

This is dogma.


It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
makes the publishers his masters.


Fair enough.


There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.


Do as you will.  The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.


Quite true.


You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).


Agreed.


Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
released under a FLOSS license?


It is evidently feasible to not read at all.  I'm sure you have
neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.


True.

Celejar

Ho hum.

I just have to wade in with one additional point.

Back in the day I remember when CD-ROMs were being promoted/released.

I think it was on Blue Peter.

They demonstrated how robust a medium it was by spreading marmalade 
(it's like jam) on the thing, wiping it off and showing that it still 
worked.


These days I don't dare look sideways at a CDs or DVDs in case they 
catch a scratch.


I'm backing up my collection onto hard disk and I'm using a CD/DVD 
repair kit, and I have to use it once or twice on those items I watch 
more frequently, oh gee, I must have watched that one a lot, out with 
the repair kit.


This is all going to change once augmented reality really kicks in - 
last time I checked you could still invite friends over to watch a movie 
or listen to music.


Once your place becomes virtual, no copyright laws are being broken, 
or am I wrong here?


Regards,
Philip Ashmore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/501b29c6.6000...@philipashmore.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-08-01 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Mi, 01 aug 12, 00:59:29, Yaro Kasear wrote:
 On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
 Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
 On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
 Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
 money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
 copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
 are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
 copies.
 IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
 basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
 Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?

None of the above. I just think that such a business model will collapse 
as soon as the consumers:
- realize the stupidity (they are starting to, probably that's why not 
  many people care so much about illegal copies of music and movies
- have comparable alternatives

 Ironically, selling GPL software you had absolutely no hand in
 developing or contributing to is an actual right the GPL guarantees.
 This might not be the best example of how advantageous open source
 can be. And probably not one of those cases in the GPL that
 guarantees morality as the FSF might see it.
 
 Theoretically, I can buy a 500 stack of DVDs, burn Debian to all of
 them, and sell them for $50 a pop because the GPL says I can. There
 is a difference, though, between having the right to do so and
 actually have even a small sampling of success. Worse, I come off as
 a leech from the community, especially if I don't give a nickel of
 that money back to the Debian project.
 
 I forget the point I'm making.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the GPL allowing to sell 
software[1]. But the fact that you can't rely on any kind of 
exclusivity[2] businesses add value to their offering, like additional 
support, etc.

[1] Technically you're not selling the software, but the media, but it 
doesn't matter for this discussion.
[2] each one of your customers would be able to compete with you, since 
he is allowed to distribute the software as well.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-08-01 Thread Celejar

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:45:27 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mi, 01 aug 12, 00:59:29, Yaro Kasear wrote:
  On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
  On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
  Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:
  
  On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
  Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
  money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
  copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
  are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
  copies.
  IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
  basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
  Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?

[The line to which you are responding is mine, not Yaro's.]

 None of the above. I just think that such a business model will collapse 
 as soon as the consumers:
 - realize the stupidity (they are starting to, probably that's why not 

You still have not given any reason for the alleged 'stupidity' - as I
keep pointing out to you, the producers (may) have invested
considerable resources to produce the original product, so just because
the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is unreasonable for it
to charge per copy?

   many people care so much about illegal copies of music and movies
 - have comparable alternatives

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120801202335.2bfb34a3.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-01 Thread John Hasler

Celejar writes:
 ...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
 unreasonable for it to charge per copy?

It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge for
copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
incur no costs and none of their property is involved?  If the producers
don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
what copying I can do.  Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
copies of objects that I own?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, though.  Now that the marginal
cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die.  It was only really
practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
that enforcement was feasible.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw869kwy@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

2012-08-01 Thread Doug


On 08/01/2012 08:50 PM, John Hasler wrote:

Celejar writes:

...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
unreasonable for it to charge per copy?

It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
copies they make, but why should your producers be able to charge for
copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
incur no costs and none of their property is involved?  If the producers
don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
what copying I can do.  Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
copies of objects that I own?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, though.  Now that the marginal
cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die.  It was only really
practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
that enforcement was feasible.

Not only does copyright not die, as long as Disney is in business,
copyrights will extend to eternity!

--doug

--
Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. 
--A.M. Greeley


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5019d4b7.5040...@optonline.net

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:39:12 +0200
gaffa deb...@folkemagt.dk wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:45:34 -0400
 Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:30:57 -0400
  Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote:
  
  ...
  
   Personally I think one of the biggest appeals of Debian (and of
   Linux in general) is the commitment to freedom. IP laws and the
   degree to which hardware vendors support freedom is relevant to
   purchasing decisions. 
  
  I agree.
  
   Debian users need to understand that attempts to encumber knowledge
   for profit are inherently wrong.
  
  I don't wholly agree here. I have a very strong preference for FLOSS,
  for many reasons, but I fully respect the rights of others to develop,
  sell, buy and use non-FLOSS. It is the right of others, individuals
  and corporations, to develop, market and sell proprietary software;
  it is my right to avoid such stuff to whatevenr extent possible.
  
 
 Yes, when you look at it from the developers point of view, but there
 can never be any advantage for the user by not having the rights FLOSS
 provides. At least I can't think of any consumer case where you
 would want less rights. I agree that we must preserve full

Of course - but that's a bit like saying that although companies have
the right to charge for their products (say, apples, or cars), I can't
think of any case where I would not want to get them for free, and
where there would be any advantage to me for having to pay for them ;)
Of course, but that doesn't mean I have the right to expect the company
to accommodate me here.

 personal liberty and make changes by taking a conscious choice.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731143637.d06dc1f8.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
  
  Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
  money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
  copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
  are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
  copies.
 
 IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that 
 basically cost nothing to produce is broken.

Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731144244.3b729d48.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:29:05 -0400
Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote:

...

 As for Celejar's point about selling licenses - he's wants to make money 
 only from direct sales. That's his problem. In every business you have 
 to look for ways to make money. Direct sales is just one method and its 
 a method that isn't always the best model.

My points, simply, are:

A company does have, and should have, the legal right to (try to) make
money from the sale of its intellectual property. This is certainly not
the only business model software companies can adopt, but it's a
commonly used, workable, and effective one; it should be available to
those companies that wish to implement it; and FLOSS dogmatism and
fanaticism do not constitute serious arguments against this.

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731144848.9e780979.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:16:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Vi, 20 iul 12, 04:29:05, Gary Dale wrote:
  On 20/07/12 03:30 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
  On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
  Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
  money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
  copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
  are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
  copies.
  IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
  basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
  
  Actually, probably not. Take the music and film industries (please).
  Stamping a disc costs almost nothing yet they sell them for
  outrageous amounts. Like software, the real work is in the source,
  not the medium. You can listen to the music for nothing on the radio
  or television or even record it yourself. Still neither the film nor
  music industries are suffering from lack of sales.
 
 I didn't mean it doesn't work now (and it will still work for some 
 time), but my hope is that eventually people (buyers) will realise the 
 absurdity of it and move to a different model. AFAICT it has already 
 started, but it will take a (long) while.

I fail to see the absurdity - they invest money producing the stuff,
and they want to, and should have the right to, recoup the investment
and profit from it (insofar as people find the stuff worth paying for).
If there's equivalent material available gratis, fine. But if not, why
isn't it reasonable to pay for it?

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731144524.8626de81.cele...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-31 Thread Yaro Kasear


On 07/31/2012 01:42 PM, Celejar wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:30:50 +0300
Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:


On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:

Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
copies.

IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
basically cost nothing to produce is broken.

Is this a moral claim, a business one, a legal one, or just plain dogma?

Celejar




Ironically, selling GPL software you had absolutely no hand in 
developing or contributing to is an actual right the GPL guarantees. 
This might not be the best example of how advantageous open source can 
be. And probably not one of those cases in the GPL that guarantees 
morality as the FSF might see it.


Theoretically, I can buy a 500 stack of DVDs, burn Debian to all of 
them, and sell them for $50 a pop because the GPL says I can. There is a 
difference, though, between having the right to do so and actually have 
even a small sampling of success. Worse, I come off as a leech from the 
community, especially if I don't give a nickel of that money back to the 
Debian project.


I forget the point I'm making.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5018c5c1.4040...@marupa.net

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-21 Thread Lisi

On Thursday 19 July 2012 04:45:34 Celejar wrote:
  Debian users need to understand that attempts to encumber knowledge for
  profit are inherently wrong.

 I don't wholly agree here. I have a very strong preference for FLOSS,
 for many reasons, but I fully respect the rights of others to develop,
 sell, buy and use non-FLOSS. It is the right of others, individuals and
 corporations, to develop, market and sell proprietary software; it is
 my right to avoid such stuff to whatevenr extent possible.

+1  

And note the to whatever extent possible.  In this world one sometimes has 
to be pragmatic.  

But I fully support the rights of those who write programs for profit, and of 
those who buy those programs, to do so.  I may regard them as frequently 
misguided, but I would defend to the death their right to be as misguided as 
they wish.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201207212322.16840.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-20 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
 
 Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
 money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
 copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
 are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
 copies.

IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that 
basically cost nothing to produce is broken.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-20 Thread Gary Dale


On 20/07/12 03:30 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:

Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
copies.

IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
basically cost nothing to produce is broken.

Kind regards,
Andrei
Actually, probably not. Take the music and film industries (please). 
Stamping a disc costs almost nothing yet they sell them for outrageous 
amounts. Like software, the real work is in the source, not the medium. 
You can listen to the music for nothing on the radio or television or 
even record it yourself. Still neither the film nor music industries are 
suffering from lack of sales.


It often amounts to a balance between convenience and cost. Most people 
would rather buy a disc or download from legal sources than hunt down 
ways to pirate them. Of course the entertainment disc license isn't a 
free license. However, I suspect that more people would buy them if they 
actually did use a free license instead of treating their customers like 
criminals.


Microsoft continues to make money on their office suite despite 
LibreOffice being a free download. The same can be said about its 
operating systems. It's certainly not because they have a better product 
either. It's more because the U.S. doesn't enforce its anti-trust laws.


So how do these profitable industries make money selling products that 
cost nothing to produce? By convincing the public that they should buy 
them - either under claims of supporting the artist or by using market 
dominance to get their products out.


If products like LibreOffice had the same market share as Microsoft's 
product, the numbers of people donating to it would give it lots of revenue.


Don't forget also, Microsoft's Internet Explorer broke into the market 
by being free as in beer at a time when Netscape dominated with a paid 
product.


As for Celejar's point about selling licenses - he's wants to make money 
only from direct sales. That's his problem. In every business you have 
to look for ways to make money. Direct sales is just one method and its 
a method that isn't always the best model.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/500916d1.5010...@rogers.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-20 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Vi, 20 iul 12, 04:29:05, Gary Dale wrote:
 On 20/07/12 03:30 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 On Jo, 19 iul 12, 22:50:25, Celejar wrote:
 Quite true - and completely irrelevant to my point. I don't deny that
 money can be made with FLOSS, just that it's pointless to try to sell
 copies of one's software if it's freely copyable. The examples you give
 are all of models other than the straightforward sale of licenses or
 copies.
 IMO a business model that relies on the possibility to sell copies that
 basically cost nothing to produce is broken.
 
 Actually, probably not. Take the music and film industries (please).
 Stamping a disc costs almost nothing yet they sell them for
 outrageous amounts. Like software, the real work is in the source,
 not the medium. You can listen to the music for nothing on the radio
 or television or even record it yourself. Still neither the film nor
 music industries are suffering from lack of sales.

I didn't mean it doesn't work now (and it will still work for some 
time), but my hope is that eventually people (buyers) will realise the 
absurdity of it and move to a different model. AFAICT it has already 
started, but it will take a (long) while.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-20 Thread Celejar

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:26:37 +1200
Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 03:20:03PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
  On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:08:58 +0300
  Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:

Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
   
   Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a 
  
  It's not that simple. If I realize my software as FLOSS, even if I
  charge money for it, how many copies can I realistically hope to sell
  if any and all my customers are perfectly free to distribute it gratis?
 
 There are plenty of Debian consultants making money. Just because the
 source code is available, doesn't mean you have to spoon feed the user
 for free.

Again, I'm certainly not denying the many possibilities of making money
with FLOSS. I'm just arguing that a) it's kind of pedantic to insist on
the distinction between free as in beer and free as in speech, since
any software that's FLOSS might just as well be free as in beer
(although certainly not the other way around), too (although money can
still be made off it in other ways) and b) if the developers of some
software spend hundreds of thousands or millions on its development,
it's pretty glib for us to breezily tell them don't charge for it -
just make back your investment by selling consulting services, and so
on.

-- 
Celejar cele...@gmail.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120720173325.348bb8cfbc4973bc6f163...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:
 
 Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
 one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
 what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.

Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a 
problem with paying for specialized software (or games, more or less the 
same problem), as long as they run natively on my platform of choice. 

Last time I tried running Starcraft II (legally bought) the setup was 
horrible :(

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread Ralf Mardorf

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 09:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 Also, I don't have a problem with paying for specialized software
 [snip] as long as they run natively on my platform of choice.

+1 and plus, nobody should have compunction when illegal using some
software. I've got the privilege not to need to use software illegally,
but I don't point my fingers on somebody using software illegally. In
the 80s I bought! software, fixed issues and made it illegally available
for everybody. No Internet at that time, the crime happened at the
schoolyard, by sharing 5 1/4 floppy discs.

Police, please sue me for using illegally software, if I should ever do
it again, but than I'll sue the software companies for selling borked
software ;).



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342679326.1279.45.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread Gary Dale


On 19/07/12 02:28 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 09:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

Also, I don't have a problem with paying for specialized software
[snip] as long as they run natively on my platform of choice.

+1 and plus, nobody should have compunction when illegal using some
software. I've got the privilege not to need to use software illegally,
but I don't point my fingers on somebody using software illegally. In
the 80s I bought! software, fixed issues and made it illegally available
for everybody. No Internet at that time, the crime happened at the
schoolyard, by sharing 5 1/4 floppy discs.

Police, please sue me for using illegally software, if I should ever do
it again, but than I'll sue the software companies for selling borked
software ;).

Do two wrongs make a right?

As the discussion around this topic started with graphics cards, let's 
look back at them. If a company open-sources its drivers, the community 
can improve on them either in a performance or a compatibility sense. 
The drivers can be kept current with the latest versions of X or any 
other graphic infrastructure.


With closed source, we're left waiting for the manufacturer to do the 
job - so long as they are in business and have the inclination. I have a 
friend who had a computer with onboard graphics that only worked with 
Windows ME. The board vendor never updated the driver to work with XP 
and the Windows XP drivers didn't work.


The Linux drivers worked perfectly. I had the machine running Debian 
faster than it ever ran Windows.


I tried using the proprietary drivers a few years back and was rewarded 
with some minor eye-candy when they worked. I stopped using them 
because, running Debian/Testing, they just wouldn't stay current with 
the latest X version. I never knew when I loose my desktop. The open 
source drivers kept me productive.


I used to run a free fax network using proprietary software. At one 
point the vendor switched from using the open-spec dBASE .dbf files to a 
proprietary database. The end result was when it screwed up, I couldn't 
fix it. Nor could I extract the data properly when I shut down the 
service and other groups wanted to continue with issue-specific 
services. Nor was the company particularly good at resolving issues that 
caused their program to lock up intermittently.


I've got computer files dating back to 1990 on my server. A lot of it is 
in proprietary formats that there haven't been programs for in over a 
decade. These are my files that I am effectively denied access to thanks 
to closed thinking.


Another friend had upgraded his work computer over the years. For a long 
time, his copy of AutoCAD continued to work. The last computer he bought 
a few years ago came with Windows Vista. When he got tired of the bugs, 
he upgraded to Windows 7, only to discover that AutoCAD stopped working. 
He had to purchase a new, updated version just to continue working 
despite the fact that he didn't need the new improved version. The old 
version worked just fine for him (I was able to get the old version to 
run in vmware - virtualBox didn't have a good enough DirectX 
implementation - but that was too kludgy for him).


Nor is there any direct free competition for AutoCAD because it 
encumbered its data format. If you want to use it, you have to pay and 
you have to maintain the secrecy. It can't be open sourced. So much for 
believing in competition.


Open source, free (as in speech) software and open formats aren't just 
philosophies. There are strong business reasons why we should be using them.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50080de0.8050...@rogers.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread Ralf Mardorf

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 09:38 -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
 Do two wrongs make a right?

No, I'm just kidding.

 I've got computer files dating back to 1990 on my server. A lot of it is 
 in proprietary formats that there haven't been programs for in over a 
 decade. These are my files that I am effectively denied access to thanks 
 to closed thinking.

This is not only an issue for computers. Sound carriers as DAT and some
others are gone and I don't have the time to copy all the productions.

 Open source, free (as in speech) software and open formats aren't just 
 philosophies. There are strong business reasons why we should be using them.

Full ACK! OTOH I understand that many companies prefer Windows. Humans
are creatures of habit. A friend tested GIMP and he liked it, but anyway
continued using AND PAYING PhotoShop.

Regards,
Ralf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342709945.1268.9.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread gaffa

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:45:34 -0400
Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:30:57 -0400
 Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote:
 
 ...
 
  Personally I think one of the biggest appeals of Debian (and of
  Linux in general) is the commitment to freedom. IP laws and the
  degree to which hardware vendors support freedom is relevant to
  purchasing decisions. 
 
 I agree.
 
  Debian users need to understand that attempts to encumber knowledge
  for profit are inherently wrong.
 
 I don't wholly agree here. I have a very strong preference for FLOSS,
 for many reasons, but I fully respect the rights of others to develop,
 sell, buy and use non-FLOSS. It is the right of others, individuals
 and corporations, to develop, market and sell proprietary software;
 it is my right to avoid such stuff to whatevenr extent possible.
 

Yes, when you look at it from the developers point of view, but there
can never be any advantage for the user by not having the rights FLOSS
provides. At least I can't think of any consumer case where you
would want less rights. I agree that we must preserve full
personal liberty and make changes by taking a conscious choice.

Cheers,
gaffa


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120719173912.0a4185b9@storm

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:17:49 -0400
Doug dmcgarr...@optonline.net wrote:

 On 07/18/2012 11:45 PM, Celejar wrote:
  On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:30:57 -0400
  Gary Dalegaryd...@rogers.com  wrote:
 
  ...
 
  Personally I think one of the biggest appeals of Debian (and of Linux in
  general) is the commitment to freedom. IP laws and the degree to which
  hardware vendors support freedom is relevant to purchasing decisions.
  I agree.
 
  Debian users need to understand that attempts to encumber knowledge for
  profit are inherently wrong.
  I don't wholly agree here. I have a very strong preference for FLOSS,
  for many reasons, but I fully respect the rights of others to develop,
  sell, buy and use non-FLOSS. It is the right of others, individuals and
  corporations, to develop, market and sell proprietary software; it is
  my right to avoid such stuff to whatevenr extent possible.
 
 The problem is that there is a huge number of specialized programs
 developed to fill a particular need, in many cases using a great deal
 of specialized knowledge.  There are, for example, microwave CAD

...

 Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
 one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
 what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
 
 BTW: when I mention expensive, I'm not talking Microsoft Office
 numbers, I'm talking 5 and 6 figures!

Thanks for the detailed explanation; I understood your basic point,
although the detail was certainly illuminating. Was this directed to
me? As I wrote above, I'm perfectly comfortable with the rights of
creators to charge whatever they feel their product is worth / whatever
the market will bear / whatever they feel it costs them to design /
produce it. If I need it enough, and there's no FLOSS alternative, I'll
buy it.

-- 
Celejar cele...@gmail.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120719151807.8c190a4c64908a7c2a24d...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:08:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:
  
  Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
  one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
  what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
 
 Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a 

It's not that simple. If I realize my software as FLOSS, even if I
charge money for it, how many copies can I realistically hope to sell
if any and all my customers are perfectly free to distribute it gratis?

 problem with paying for specialized software (or games, more or less the 
 same problem), as long as they run natively on my platform of choice. 
 
 Last time I tried running Starcraft II (legally bought) the setup was 
 horrible :(

That's certainly aggravating.

-- 
Celejar cele...@gmail.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120719152003.dbcb37d9cea6110d1270a...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:28:46 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:

 On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 09:08 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
  Also, I don't have a problem with paying for specialized software
  [snip] as long as they run natively on my platform of choice.
 
 +1 and plus, nobody should have compunction when illegal using some

Why do you feel that nobody should have any compunctions with illegally
using software? Does this attitude of yours apply to the breaking of
all laws, or only this particular one and others you don't like?

 software. I've got the privilege not to need to use software illegally,
 but I don't point my fingers on somebody using software illegally. In
 the 80s I bought! software, fixed issues and made it illegally available
 for everybody. No Internet at that time, the crime happened at the
 schoolyard, by sharing 5 1/4 floppy discs.
 
 Police, please sue me for using illegally software, if I should ever do
 it again, but than I'll sue the software companies for selling borked
 software ;).

-- 
Celejar cele...@gmail.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20120719152140.8598f5bf910bb69cc5c48...@gmail.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]

2012-07-19 Thread Gary Dale


On 19/07/12 03:20 PM, Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:08:58 +0300
Andrei POPESCUandreimpope...@gmail.com  wrote:


On Jo, 19 iul 12, 01:17:49, Doug wrote:

Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.

Please don't confuse free (beer) with free(dom). Also, I don't have a

It's not that simple. If I realize my software as FLOSS, even if I
charge money for it, how many copies can I realistically hope to sell
if any and all my customers are perfectly free to distribute it gratis?
Many companies release their software as FLOSS and make money out of it. 
RedHat is a good example. Novell only returned to profitability after 
taking over Suse. IBM is one of the world's biggest supporters of FLOSS.


There are various models that are used. Some charge for support, like 
RedHat. If you don't want their support, you can use CentOS or 
Scientific Linux. Moreover, more companies prefer RedHat's support to 
Oracle's for essentially the same OS. I charge people to support their 
Linux (and Windows) setups. After all, technical expertise isn't all 
that common or easy.


Others charge for training. Just because the software is free doesn't 
mean you necessarily know how to use it to its fullest capacity. Many 
companies prefer to send people for training rather than have them 
struggle to get used to a product.


Some use donation models - ask people who use your software to 
contribute to its development (or not, it's optional). Others seek 
funding from foundations to keep developing software that servers the 
public good.


Some use ads on their web sites to generate revenue when (potential) 
user come to look for help.


Some just build up a base of volunteers to put out their product without 
really expecting to make any money from it. They have day jobs to pay 
the way. I do something similar when I volunteer with the Lions Club - 
it's just not software related.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5008683a.7050...@rogers.com

Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]