> Let's be clear on exactly what you are doing when you put a (C) on
> something you derive (I subscribe to Hume's philosophy whereby
> everything you are is defined by cultural influences in your
> environment as it interacts with your brain, and hence everything you
> think and everything you create is a derivative work). You are, in
> essence, saying, ``I am appealing to the government to hold a gun to
> your head and force you to behave a certain way with respect to this
> derivative work that I have instantiated in this or that form.'' I
> don't care if you are Microsoft or RMS; this is what you are doing.
> You are dictating terms and conditions whereby someone may behave with
> respect to your derivative work, on penalty of financial ruin or
> prison time as imposed upon you by the government.
Hmm, I guess we are. We do the same with respect to the rest of our
property ("I am appealing to the government to hold a gun to your head
and force you to behave in a certain way with respect to dealing with
my family, my house and my things"). Using words that make it look
horrible does not make your concepts more meaningful. That's what
anti-LDS propaganda is all about. Playing with rethorics is wrong.
> To copy is a fundamental right inherited by all men. We are all
> copying machines. Our very physical forms are the result of copying
> genetic sequences. Our language is copied from our parents. Our
> religion is copied in a like manner. Everything we think is
> interpreted in the context of a culture that was copied into our
> brains. To place restrictions or conditions on this act of copying is
> to control that primitive component of our very existence.
If copying is a fundamental right of man, then I should complain and
appeal to ACLU because the Honor Code doesn't let me copy during a
test. OK, sarcasm off.
No, copying is not a right. You aregiving as example things that were
never intended or designed to be copyrighted (language, parents' DNA,
etc). I am talking about products you make with the intent of earning
profit. If an artist makes a song and sells the mp3 in Napster or
whatever, and you go and make a zillion copies for everybody to
download, you are destroying what the artist was looking for. You
might say that the artist already has millions of dollars, but again,
it is not your place to put a cap on what he can earn. You might say
that you shouldn't be restricted to share that mp3 with your friends,
but by allowing you to do so you are hindering that artist's business
(yes, potential sales constitute the basis of commerce). Again, my
freedom is preserved because nobody forces me to buy his mp3 (or I can
if I want to) and the artist has his economic freedom to do his
business they way he likes it.That is the beauty of trade, both sides
get what they want because they value things defferently, and a swap
makes both parties happy. Restricting copyright in this case would
definetely make one of the parties unsatisfied and the trade
benefitial to one party only.
What I mean is that removing copyrights does not give the public more
freedom (it gives more options but the freedom to choose already
exists) and it does take away the right of enterpreneurs to do
business according to their wishes. Selling software is not immoral.
It is not more immoral than asmall town baker making fresh bread and
selling it to his fellow villagers. Putting a restrictions on the
copying of my work is not immoral as I am not forcing anybody to buy
it but rather I am ensuring that I receive just compensation according
to the demand for my product. Denying this is going against the
principles of free market and taking away some of the most precious
economic and commercial freedoms Americans enjoy (as opposed to some
made-up "right to copy").
Please note that my comments refer to copyrights (which I strongly
support) and not to patenting (I haven't entirely made up my mind
about it yet, but I tend to dislike it).
Also, I am in no way siding with M$ (although I like and use several
of their products). While a great advocate of free market (as much as
I am an advocate of OSS), I do not condone monopoly. Monopolies and
cartels go against the very foundations of free market. That is, free
market means that no one vendor or group of vendor can set the market
value of a product, but instead is left to the demand and the supply
to determine it. Monopoly and cartels give the power of choosing the
price to a few individuals and therefore it's against free market.
In other words, stop being religious about it. I know that despise of
copyright laws is a big trend in Free Software circles but that
doesn't make it logical or right. Consider the rights you would tamper
with by enforcing Richard Stallman's ideas. Ah! And don't forget,
Richard Stallman is an active, registered member of ACLU.
Chris Alvarez
--------------------
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
