Re: [uug] Daily Universe Watch: More drivel

Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:29:13 -0800 

Just to keep an old flame war going....

I will not argue that BSD is more "free", except that, if you read my letter, you would notice little difference between Disney taking a work that was only protected for 28 years and making a derivitive that will be protected for 95, or more, years and a company taking a BSD work and making a proprietary derivitive. While copyright law still exists, and you will notice I never said IP law, in and of itself, was bad, I, personally, would like to use it to assure that such abusive integration of my work does not happen.

The BSD license, the GPL, and Creative Commons, are all services meant to help end the maddness of current IP law. Some prefer total "giving away" as BSD, others like the share-and-share-alike of the GPL. Both are possible under CC. In the end it's only a preference.

--jeremy




Josh Coates wrote:

This makes me thankful for the GNU license.



just pick up on an old flame war in case anyone has missed it, the BSD
license *is* much more "free" than GNU.
i trust this is self evident, but i just wanted to point it out in case that
escaped anyone.

Josh Coates
http://www.jcoates.org

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert LeBlanc
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:51 PM
To: BYU Unix Users Group
Subject: RE: [uug] Daily Universe Watch: More drivel


This makes me thankful for the GNU license. You use it now, and you give
back to the community now. There is no waiting 20-some-odd years to give
back, we get to do it now.

Robert LeBlanc



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Behalf Of jb
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:45 PM
To: BYU Unix Users Group
Subject: Re: [uug] Daily Universe Watch: More drivel

Maybe I shouldn't let this get my dander up, but there is something
cathartic about spouting off the DU. so, here's the letter I just
submitted:

==============

Although I agree that no one should download music illegally,


Thursday's


editorial, "Want a revolution? Get in tune, but do it legally", missed
the boat on copyright law, justification, and history. First,


copyright,


and other intellectual property law, is not required for creation, as
the writer assumes. Pick any classical artist, and they created


without


the benefit of copyright or patents. The editorial states that IP law


is


"at the foundation of free enterprise in first world countries," but
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Isaac MacPhearson in 1813, "that the nations
which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England


[where


IP originated] in new and useful devices."

Second, the writer completely fails to mention the copyright holder's
responsibility to the society which grants the copyright. IP law is
meant to reward, for a time, a creator with an exclusive monopoly over
their creation. In return, the copyright owner forfeits all rights to
their creation to society when the copyright expires. However, in
today's world, where copyright terms have, in our lifetime, twice been
extended retroactively, this expiration of copyright may never happen,
effectively allowing copyright holders to receive protection from
society without ever paying it back.

Third, copyright was originally for a maximum time of 28 years. That
means that all the Beatles, Elvis, and other "classics" released


before


1977, would already be public domain, but corporations have convinced
our lawmakers that they still deserve our protection. These laws also
apply to literature and film. Take for example, Kipling's "The Jungle
Book": It was protected from 1894-1922. Disney's 1967 derivative will


be


covered until 2062. (Protection of work-for-hire is now set at 95
years). The same can be said of Peter Pan, and Alice in Wonderland.
What's worse, had those authors' works been protected by the same laws
as Disney's versions, Disney would not have been able to make cartoons
of them for free. Such companies seem keen on taking from the public
domain, but never on contributing to it.

The good news is that copyright is not, as the editorial seems to


state,


a natural right. Indeed, Jefferson said that "inventions then cannot,


in


nature, be a subject of property," but it is society which allows it


to


be so. Therefore, these laws can be changed, but only when the average
person stops accepting them as morally correct, and editorials stop
repeating the popular rhetoric they're fed by big media.

Jeremy Browne
San Jose, CA

==============

Brian Phillips wrote:



"If the majority of consumers will restrain themselves, the music
industry will follow suit."

I guess because of the hundreds of times the media industry has
restrained itself from taking advantage of the consumer with


outrageous


prices, we should take this one on trust.

-Brian





-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




On Behalf Of jb
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:47 PM
To: Michael Halcrow; BYU Unix Users Group
Subject: Re: [uug] Daily Universe Watch: More drivel

Let's see:

"For the music industry to give up its battle against copyright
violations would deny the concept of intellectual property, which


lies


at the foundation of free enterprise in first world countries. It




could




lead to challenges of copyrights and patents of everything from




medicine




and computer technology to books and architectural plans. Without


such


copyrights and patents, artists and scientists would first starve


and


then find new jobs, leaving the public without new films, cars,




medical




treatments or computer gadgets."

I think this person should read Thomas Jefferson's letter to Isaac
MacPhearson.

"In a nutshell, society has to pay the people who do the work of
creation and innovation."

First, we already pay them. We grant them a time-limited monopoly in
exchange for rights to their work when that expires. Of course, this
ain't happening anytime soon. Essencially, companies are getting our
half of the deal and never having to give their half. Take a look at
these examples:
Kipling's The Jungle Book: C1894-1922
Disney's The Jungle Book: C1967-2062
Carrol's Alice I,II: C1871-1899
Disney's Alice in Wonderland: C1951-2046
Barrie's Peter Pan: C1902-1930
Disney's Peter pan: C1953-2048

Second, where were these IP laws when Mozart, Bach, daVinci, and all




the




other greatest artist in history were creating?

--jeremy



Michael Halcrow wrote:





http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/54325

Mike


.___________________________________________________________________.


"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property
rights, human rights must prevail."
- Abraham Lincoln






----------------------------------------------------------------------


-




-




--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of




their




author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or




BYU-UUG.




___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list





--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of


their


author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or




BYU-UUG.




___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list




--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of


their


author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or


BYU-UUG.


___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list





--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or


BYU-UUG.


___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list






--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG.
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list


--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list





--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list

Reply via email to