7 ms·

It was a rather tongue in cheek comment. The assessment of value changes depending on where you begin your inquiry; if you look only at the immediate situation

It was a rather tongue in cheek comment. The assessment of value changes depending on where you begin your inquiry; if you look only at the immediate situation than effectively yes, these lawyers have provided a tangible public service. On the other-hand the entire branch of law in this case is providing no-benefit to civilization and it's only acts as a funnel for the transfer of wealth between entities (lawyers facilitate this transfer and benefit from it's continued practice which is definitionally parasitic since nothing of value is being created in the process).

rayiner 10y ago
Copyright creates enormous wealth. You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. You're limited to this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. A world without copyright is not one in which studios still make the AAA movies people want and just distribute them into the public domain. It's one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices like Apple TVs instead of general purpose computers.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. I'm not convinced that copyrighted software is, indeed, a good thing. The FSF's philosophical documents are pretty persuasive. > The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. Does it though? I've found that the best, most pleasant, most powerful, most flexible software I use is free. > It's one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices like Apple TVs instead of general purpose computers. Try streaming movies on FreeBSD, Linux desktops or anything which is not macOS, iOS, Windows or Android!
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    > The FSF's philosophical documents are pretty persuasive. The GPL, at the core of the FSF mission, explicitly and deliberately relies on copyright law for its legal effects.
    - krupan 10y ago
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....
      - rayiner 10y ago
        The FSF is not opposed to copyright as a concept. You can argue over duration, but copyleft would not be possible if everything were in the public domain.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The FSF is not opposed to copyright as a concept. You can argue over duration, but copyleft would not be possible if everything were in the public domain. Without copyright, arguably copyleft would be unnecessary, since the whole purpose of copyleft is to prevent non-Free code from being built on Free code, and without copyright, everything would be Free. (OTOH, given the GPLv3, maybe that's not correct in the FSFs view, since the GPLv3 implies that "Free" has a broader and industry-dependent definition that merely eliminating copyright-based limitations wouldn't satisfy, so maybe the FSF does need to be copyright maximalists to advance their idea of Freedom-compelled-by-copyleft-license.)
        krupan 10y ago
        GPLv3 mainly added new clauses to deal with other "intellectual property" laws that people started using to "protect" their source code such as patents, TIVO-ization tricks, and DRM. GPLv2 was written back when copyright was the only thing people were using to prevent sharing of their code.
- coldpie 10y ago
  I'm not convinced that exclusivity is the only way to generate money for software development and other creative works. What about getting paid in order to perform work, instead of for having performed work?
  - eropple 10y ago
    All that does is empower capital and disempower labor (because other forms of capital remain). Why is that a good thing for us as laborers? That copyright can allow labor to create capital is one of its more important aspects.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > Copyright creates enormous wealth. You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. You're limited to this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. It's not a black or white thing, although I guess that's what supporters of endless copyright extensions would like to convince you to think. I concur with the conception of copyright which dictates that it should protect or make worthwhile the upfront risk and investment to produce something of value. Would having a much more limited span or at least capped to the life-time of the creator versus 120 year copyright have prevented happy-birthday or mickey-mouse from being created? I think the answer is unequivocally no. Neither is it true that you can't have transactions in software without copyright protection (Redhat, Mozilla is proof enough of this). Meanwhile larger companies with all the benefits of copy-right protection are making most of their money from Cloud Apps and Web services anyways (Facebook, Google) even Microsoft the traditional major player in the 'for-sale' software business is moving away from it towards cloud offerings. > A world without copyright is not one in which studios still make the AAA movies people want and just distribute them into the public domain. What is the term ( in length of years) across which Studios calculate the gross revenue vs. expenses from their production? I don't have a graph in front of me but surely they calculate that revenue must top expenses within the release year to justify expenses and it's a highly diminishing slope after that. Netflix is already effectively locked down (and clearly the future), - I don't see how copyright is preserving any kind of liberties here.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    You said "the entire branch of law in this case is providing no-benefit to civilization."
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      I think the net-effect given the current state of law is probably a negative, yes.
- cft 10y ago
  I can assure you that if you receive the entire say Microsoft codebase, you will make very little or no money for example.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    That is because you could not build it :) I am sure you could make money off looking for exploits that could be sold to black hats.
- jodrellblank 10y ago
  this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. [..] A world without copyright is [..] one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices So... it's exactly like the coming future anyway?
ethanbond 10y ago
Meanwhile... Let's all celebrate when the next x for y startup gets tens of millions in funding!

rayiner 10y ago

Copyright creates enormous wealth. You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. You're limited to this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. A world without copyright is not one in which studios still make the AAA movies people want and just distribute them into the public domain. It's one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices like Apple TVs instead of general purpose computers.

zeveb 10y ago
> You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. I'm not convinced that copyrighted software is, indeed, a good thing. The FSF's philosophical documents are pretty persuasive. > The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. Does it though? I've found that the best, most pleasant, most powerful, most flexible software I use is free. > It's one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices like Apple TVs instead of general purpose computers. Try streaming movies on FreeBSD, Linux desktops or anything which is not macOS, iOS, Windows or Android!
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  > The FSF's philosophical documents are pretty persuasive. The GPL, at the core of the FSF mission, explicitly and deliberately relies on copyright law for its legal effects.
  - krupan 10y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The FSF is not opposed to copyright as a concept. You can argue over duration, but copyleft would not be possible if everything were in the public domain.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The FSF is not opposed to copyright as a concept. You can argue over duration, but copyleft would not be possible if everything were in the public domain. Without copyright, arguably copyleft would be unnecessary, since the whole purpose of copyleft is to prevent non-Free code from being built on Free code, and without copyright, everything would be Free. (OTOH, given the GPLv3, maybe that's not correct in the FSFs view, since the GPLv3 implies that "Free" has a broader and industry-dependent definition that merely eliminating copyright-based limitations wouldn't satisfy, so maybe the FSF does need to be copyright maximalists to advance their idea of Freedom-compelled-by-copyleft-license.)
        krupan 10y ago
        GPLv3 mainly added new clauses to deal with other "intellectual property" laws that people started using to "protect" their source code such as patents, TIVO-ization tricks, and DRM. GPLv2 was written back when copyright was the only thing people were using to prevent sharing of their code.
coldpie 10y ago
I'm not convinced that exclusivity is the only way to generate money for software development and other creative works. What about getting paid in order to perform work, instead of for having performed work?
- eropple 10y ago
  All that does is empower capital and disempower labor (because other forms of capital remain). Why is that a good thing for us as laborers? That copyright can allow labor to create capital is one of its more important aspects.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Copyright creates enormous wealth. You can't have markets if you can't have transactions, and you can't have transactions in software if you don't have copyright protection. You're limited to this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. The world benefits enormously from just being able to sell software, movies, etc. as you would a physical product. It's not a black or white thing, although I guess that's what supporters of endless copyright extensions would like to convince you to think. I concur with the conception of copyright which dictates that it should protect or make worthwhile the upfront risk and investment to produce something of value. Would having a much more limited span or at least capped to the life-time of the creator versus 120 year copyright have prevented happy-birthday or mickey-mouse from being created? I think the answer is unequivocally no. Neither is it true that you can't have transactions in software without copyright protection (Redhat, Mozilla is proof enough of this). Meanwhile larger companies with all the benefits of copy-right protection are making most of their money from Cloud Apps and Web services anyways (Facebook, Google) even Microsoft the traditional major player in the 'for-sale' software business is moving away from it towards cloud offerings. > A world without copyright is not one in which studios still make the AAA movies people want and just distribute them into the public domain. What is the term ( in length of years) across which Studios calculate the gross revenue vs. expenses from their production? I don't have a graph in front of me but surely they calculate that revenue must top expenses within the release year to justify expenses and it's a highly diminishing slope after that. Netflix is already effectively locked down (and clearly the future), - I don't see how copyright is preserving any kind of liberties here.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You said "the entire branch of law in this case is providing no-benefit to civilization."
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    I think the net-effect given the current state of law is probably a negative, yes.
cft 10y ago
I can assure you that if you receive the entire say Microsoft codebase, you will make very little or no money for example.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  That is because you could not build it :) I am sure you could make money off looking for exploits that could be sold to black hats.
jodrellblank 10y ago
this impoverished world where the software creator has to lock it behind a services API in order to monetize it. [..] A world without copyright is [..] one where you can only watch movies in theaters, or stream them onto locked down devices So... it's exactly like the coming future anyway?

ethanbond 10y ago

Meanwhile... Let's all celebrate when the next x for y startup gets tens of millions in funding!