Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net writes:
"Piracy" has nothing to do with stealing.
No, it is just copyright infringement.
Copyright is just evil law that nobody should obey.
If no-one obeys copyright, we have no free software.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 10:23:56PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net writes:
"Piracy" has nothing to do with stealing.
No, it is just copyright infringement.
And copyright is evil law that should be abolished..
Copyright is just evil law that nobody should obey.
If no-one obeys copyright, we have no free software.
If no-one obeys copyright, all software is free.
Tomasz:
And copyright is evil law that should be abolished..
As already noted, this opinion may not be shared by everyone here :)
If no-one obeys copyright, all software is free.
It's gratis, but not libre. Abolishing copyright doesn't create libre software, to that you also need to make availability of source code compulsory.
Computer software, unlike every[1] other item protected by copyright, is not self-evident, so having no copyright would be absolutely useless for the common good. Whether or not copyright fosters production by potential authors is irrelevant here.
When you read a book, you have all information. When you listen to music you have all information. When you run a program you have no information at all. Recreating "source code" for books and music once you have a "runnable" copy is a very little effort. For computer programs it's impossible. Without copyright you'd be able to exploit the four freedoms for every authoral work but software.
Moreover, we need copyright to enforce copyleft. Without copyright, we can't ensure our software is not proprietarized.
[1] I may forget some item, but "most" applies even if I am wrong
Sorry for all references to Communism, but that's the successful fight against the system I know best.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:18:11PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
And copyright is evil law that should be abolished..
As already noted, this opinion may not be shared by everyone here :)
And that's not an exception that's a rule, most people talk about reforming not abolishing, because it seems more likely.
For example, in 70s/80s, most of KOR, Solidarity and other opposition talked about "reforming" socialism and those who said it should be abolished were in extreme minority, just like now with copyright/patent/etc. laws., and weren't being taken seriously by many.
If no-one obeys copyright, all software is free.
It's gratis, but not libre. Abolishing copyright doesn't create libre software, to that you also need to make availability of source code compulsory.
Computer software, unlike every[1] other item protected by copyright, is not self-evident, so having no copyright would be absolutely useless for the common good. Whether or not copyright fosters production by potential authors is irrelevant here.
When you read a book, you have all information. When you listen to music you have all information. When you run a program you have no information at all. Recreating "source code" for books and music once you have a "runnable" copy is a very little effort. For computer programs it's impossible. Without copyright you'd be able to exploit the four freedoms for every authoral work but software.
If there were no copyright, nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source code, therefore nobody would hide it.
Moreover, we need copyright to enforce copyleft. Without copyright, we can't ensure our software is not proprietarized.
That's just a trick. Without copyright laws, we wouldn't need copyleft, because nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source.
[1] I may forget some item, but "most" applies even if I am wrong
Some ? What about music and films ? I think the situation is exactly opposite. With the exception of books, everything else has its source hidden.
On Sat, 2001-10-20 at 14:40, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:18:11PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
[snip]
If there were no copyright, nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source code, therefore nobody would hide it.
Can you explain why the absence of copyright law would make a proprietary software business release their source code?
Moreover, we need copyright to enforce copyleft. Without copyright, we can't ensure our software is not proprietarized.
That's just a trick. Without copyright laws, we wouldn't need copyleft, because nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source.
again, where's the reasoning behind this statement? are you able to obtain source code back from binary? (a meaningful one)
[1] I may forget some item, but "most" applies even if I am wrong
Some ? What about music and films ? I think the situation is exactly opposite. With the exception of books, everything else has its source hidden.
so what is the source code for music or films? and why you think it is hidden?
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 03:24:32PM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sat, 2001-10-20 at 14:40, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 02:18:11PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
[snip]
If there were no copyright, nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source code, therefore nobody would hide it.
Can you explain why the absence of copyright law would make a proprietary software business release their source code?
Moreover, we need copyright to enforce copyleft. Without copyright, we can't ensure our software is not proprietarized.
That's just a trick. Without copyright laws, we wouldn't need copyleft, because nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source.
again, where's the reasoning behind this statement? are you able to obtain source code back from binary? (a meaningful one)
Without copyright law there would be no proprietary software companies (why would they exist ?), so there would be no problem.
I'd say that your lack of belief that world will work without "the system" is natural. Here, 12 years ago, many people couldn't believe that market without control can work. And although they see they were wrong, many still can't believe that private education or health care could work.
[1] I may forget some item, but "most" applies even if I am wrong
Some ? What about music and films ? I think the situation is exactly opposite. With the exception of books, everything else has its source hidden.
so what is the source code for music or films? and why you think it is hidden?
For music it's notes or whatever is used to control modern musicplaying hardware. I can't tell you what's movie's source, but you can't make new movie just from looking at current one. And in most movies there's lot of computer rendering for special effects etc., and you don't get it with a movie.
On 20 Oct 01, at 15:47, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Without copyright law there would be no proprietary software companies (why would they exist ?), so there would be no problem.
You're wrong here; I'm working on a history of just this problem just now (M.A.thesis) an in the course have read quite a few articles in the "communications of the acm" (http:www.acm.org) all of the early to late 1960s when copyrighting for software was being discussed as a possibility for "securing" software. If you read these you'll soon find references to source code being withheld. Why, because companies (existing even without copyright) found advantages in doing this. You'd have to topple capitalism to change this! ..and up to now we weren't about that, were we? So the only way to change the situation is to create an invironment in which companies are DIS-advantaged when withholding their source code and breaking one or afew copyrights wont change that in a hurry.
For music it's notes or whatever is used to control modern musicplaying hardware. I can't tell you what's movie's source, but you can't make new movie just from looking at current one. And in most movies there's lot of computer rendering for special effects etc., and you don't get it with a movie.
If you have a musical ear you'll always be able to replay a peace of music, because sounds of music relate directly to the notes. and if you HAVE the film propper (the roles, that is) you can always put new pictures in if you have the machinery to do so - no source code as such.
Joachim
(looks like I lost this before sending. It's mostly old stuff at this point, given futher comments that already passed, but here it is)
If there were no copyright, nobody would have any bussiness in hiding source code, therefore nobody would hide it.
The business would be *exactly* in hiding source code. If I have the program, I can't [realistically] fix bugs or add features unless I have the source. So the software company would get the same proprietary advantages even if copying would be allowed.
Some ? What about music and films ? I think the situation is exactly opposite. With the exception of books, everything else has its source hidden.
Physically, you don't have the source of the book either. If you want to make a "derived" book, you'd need the source in order to only type in your changes (instead of all of it, plus dealing with layout). With music you don't have the score, and with films I can't tell what the "source" is. But I don't think it's importanto to detail what "source" is for the different types of work.
In all cases the user's perception of the authoral work is the whole of the work, there's nothing hidden. Even if you need to retype it all or rewrite the score in order to make a derived work, that's pretty easy to do. For films, you just need to produce the missing scenes to make your derived work. And the original author has no real direct advantage over other authors (beside details such as having the actors and the material used in the former film).
The difference with software is that the user's perception of the product is *not* everything the product has to offer; being able to copy and run a program isn't enough to make a modified copy. Or even to translate (while a film and a book is easily translated, here is music that is "technically" different).
Disclaimer: this one of "user perception" is not an idea of mine, I've read it, and it's poorly expressed mainly because of my English un-skills.
/alessandro
On 20 Oct 01, at 14:18, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
When you listen to music you have all information.
This isn't the case. For music to be libre requires all constituent sounds to be available and freely sample-able. Also all the programming (much music is programmed too remember) must be available and documented. Basically everything possible to make recreation-from-source and improvement of the sound easy and legal, so the people don't need cutting-edge analysers (which presently aren't remotely good enough, AFAIK).
The copyright dilemma becomes clearer if you happen believe that it is ethical to share and enjoy anything that can be freely copied -- essentially anything digitisable. Whether it's legal or not is then another question entirely. Not one I can honestly claim to care about, but it aids discussion for everyone if terms are clarified.
David