5 ms·

Copyright will bring the end of ownership

33 points by omergertel 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago
"The retailer will still wipe an e-book if a court or regulatory body orders it" To be fair, a court could probably also order the police to come to your house and confiscate your paper books. In that sense, you really don't own anything - ownership is a product of governments. (Or rather, a product of guns).
- mbyrne 16y ago
  You have a point, but it is more accurate to say that government is established by people to enforce their concept of ownership amongst themselves. Government isn't source of the concept of ownership, it is the enforcer of that society's concept of ownership. Having said that, I advocate that there is a overarching source of ownership rights, whether they are called moral rights or natural rights or whatever. For example, I think a person owns his own body and regardless of what the law says, the government can't visit your house and take one of your kidneys because someone else wants yours. Other people think that they should be able to, for the "good" of society.
  - billybob 16y ago
    I agree with you, but people who claim not to believe in moral absolutes, such as "it is wrong to steal someone's kidneys even if the law says you can," really should never protest any law, copyright or otherwise, except to say "I don't personally like that." To say "it's unjust" is to make a claim that, in their philosophy, means nothing. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Or it could just be assumed that "it is unjust" means "I personally think it is unjust".
mbyrne 16y ago
Question, when you go on vacation, do you rent a hotel room or do you buy a condo for that trip? If you rent a hotel room, do you take the towels, bed, and anything else that is not nailed down because you paid a night's rent so that means you own it all forever? How long should you be able to order room service, use the spa, and hang out at the pool after you have left the hotel and stopped paying for room?
- bobwaycott 16y ago
  Hate to say it, but this is a really awful analogy. When you "rent a hotel room", you are doing just that--RENTING a hotel room. When you walk into Best Buy or use an online store somewhere to "buy software X", you are justifiably upset when later told that you were actually RENTING software X. You never call your local Marriott and ask how much it would cost to BUY a room for a night in town. You know you are renting. But software, like books, music, movies, houses, and cars is SOLD. Come to think of it, houses and cars are much better for analogy. Nobody ever confuses renting a home with purchasing a home. Completely different expectations and end results. Same goes for cars. Now, you are within your rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are told years later by the builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you cannot sell your home or your car to another party because they have not given express permission for you to transfer ownership.
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    Actually it is a perfectly adequate analogy. 1. You probably didn't read the linked article. It was essentially a complaint that people don't own licensed software and that since licensed software interacts with hardware, when people violate the terms of the license they lose the use of the software and consequently the full use of the hardware that interacts with the software. 2. The analogy with hotel rooms is the core of the article's point of view. By using the hotel analogy it revealed the weakness in the article's complaint. The fact that you don't like it either means you agree that having a license doesn't mean that your own the thing, or, that you are making a separate point, that people don't understand what they are buying, but that is not the point of the linked article.
  - 16y ago
bobwaycott 16y ago
Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental. Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  This sounds like a semantic quibble. It sounds like you purchased a "license." It's not a software rental, it is a license. Rental implies temporary use.(look it up) Versus, when you purchase a software license you can generally use the software forever. What you can or can't do is spelled out in the license agreement. If you don't agree, don't purchase (the license.) Also, Rentals don't necessarily include the licensor including "fixing all the problems" one may encounter. For example commercial real estate rental have practically none of the hand-holding that residential rentals have. "I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else." Perhaps this "right" is a moral right in your philosophy of the world but it is definitely not a legal right. If one doesn't like a law then one should work to get it changed.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else." As stated by many of the people defending piracy on HN, software isn't a tangible item. So why should it be treated like a pack of floppies or a paperback book? You aren't buying software outright. If you were, it would cost $100,000 rather than $100. You are purchasing a license to use it, which means you can use it once (and sell it if you want to one person). However, you aren't allowed to copy it to your friends. "Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental." Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you download? Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid them a one-time fee?
pornel 16y ago
How can I sell my software for people to own without giving them right to pirate it? Honest question. I can only think of adding such user-friendly provisions in a EULA, but wouldn't that still be licensing?
- stonemetal 16y ago
  The same way people sell books with out giving them the right to pirate them. You sell a copy, copyright precludes their right to redistribute copies.
- njharman 16y ago
  Make your software require parts that you do not sell them. This is the SaaS model.
- barrkel 16y ago
  Borland used to have a very easy to understand license on their products: the software was licensed "like a book": http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_quot_Treat_Software_Just_Like_a_Book_quot http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_quot_...
BonsaiDen 16y ago
The Video in the article is a great example! "This Video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country"
- mbyrne 16y ago
  Please clarify, a great example of what?
  - BonsaiDen 16y ago
    That the whole copyright thing is getting out of control, soon words will be copyrighted... Just now some german newspapers plan on copyrighting the stuff the use in their headlines, yes the sentences/words in the headlines.
    - mbyrne 16y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. It might be of interest that The Australian Court just ruled against copyright claims in headlines.I don't know that copyright is out of control, but what is out of control is the way that companies use claims of copyright ownership to bully weaker entities and that carriers cooperate with this tactic and will take down content or block it based on a worthless claim. Further that when a false claim is lodged that there seems to be no recourse or penalty. I have never heard of one.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 16y ago
This is one of those HN submissions where the OP is a restatement of the exact same arguments we've seen for the past 5-10 years on a given issue, peppered with various examples we've all seen individually posted and discussed on HN, and the article is submitted to HN as a social cue for "let's all discuss this issue over again".
jcl 16y ago
To be fair, the Autodesk case was a little more complicated than the Slashdot summary makes it sound. A company bought Autodesk's software, then they later bought an upgrade at a discount and sold the original software to a reseller. In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.
- omergertel 16y ago
  I must admit I haven't read any deeper, so you may be right. I think, however, that if you combine the rulings over time, you will notice that the spirit of the law, as it is interpreted by the courts is in favor of the copyright owner. And the copyright owners are not in the business of being reasonable. As Larry Lessig points out, common sense is a rare idea in the practice of law.
nocipher 16y ago
People usually try to skirt this issue. The proponents of copyright laws stubbornly call anyone who would infringe a thief while those on the other side of the argument aptly point out the fallacy of such analogies. The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. To copy a book requires either theft from a publisher or pouring through it, page by page, and manually recreating it. The same is true of old VHS tapes. Some apparatus, not widely available, was required to make copies that could be redistributed. Since real effort was required to produce copies, copyright law could rightfully condemn those who would make copies. The ubiquity of digital technology has fundamentally changed this. Copying anything is trivial yet copyright law has been left unchanged. These laws are simply inadequate for our modern reality. An overhaul of the whole system by some smart, competent, and knowledgeable people is necessary. Unfortunately, big media has such stake in the antiquated laws, and such influence in the legislature (in the US, but very likely abroad as well), that such a change probably won't happen for a number of years. So, until then, we are stuck in this lawless landscape where everyone on every side of the argument is wrong.
- ced 16y ago
  The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. I think you have it upside-down. Before the printing press, there were no copyrights. It was an honor for the author if someone took the time to copy his book. Nowadays, when you buy a book or a CD, you're paying for content, not for the medium. In that context, maybe "stealing" is not an appropriate word, but "free-loading" definitely is.
  - nocipher 16y ago
    I never thought of it like that. Maybe technology does necessitate rights management. Even so, copying is trivial and available to everyone. It is not feasible to have the granular control necessary to prevent widespread copying and this is exactly the situation with which we are faced. I argue that the current laws are inadequate for dealing with the situation and, in fact, I think this is self-apparent. Your argument seems to be that what we are buying is somehow different from what we used to buy. You also seem to have downgraded the act of copying from theft to some lesser repugnant act. Both of these would suggest that we need something different from the current copyright system. You can disagree with my initial synopsis of copyright laws, and your point of contention there is likely valid, but my message wasn't that copyright laws were only useful when it was difficult to copy works, but that the laws, as they exist now, do not fit in a world where content is so liquid and decentralized. By no means am I arguing that, because of this, creators should not have their works protected, but rather that a paradigm shift is necessary to actually reach that end.

33 points by omergertel 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago

"The retailer will still wipe an e-book if a court or regulatory body orders it" To be fair, a court could probably also order the police to come to your house and confiscate your paper books. In that sense, you really don't own anything - ownership is a product of governments. (Or rather, a product of guns).

mbyrne 16y ago
You have a point, but it is more accurate to say that government is established by people to enforce their concept of ownership amongst themselves. Government isn't source of the concept of ownership, it is the enforcer of that society's concept of ownership. Having said that, I advocate that there is a overarching source of ownership rights, whether they are called moral rights or natural rights or whatever. For example, I think a person owns his own body and regardless of what the law says, the government can't visit your house and take one of your kidneys because someone else wants yours. Other people think that they should be able to, for the "good" of society.
- billybob 16y ago
  I agree with you, but people who claim not to believe in moral absolutes, such as "it is wrong to steal someone's kidneys even if the law says you can," really should never protest any law, copyright or otherwise, except to say "I don't personally like that." To say "it's unjust" is to make a claim that, in their philosophy, means nothing. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Or it could just be assumed that "it is unjust" means "I personally think it is unjust".

mbyrne 16y ago

Question, when you go on vacation, do you rent a hotel room or do you buy a condo for that trip? If you rent a hotel room, do you take the towels, bed, and anything else that is not nailed down because you paid a night's rent so that means you own it all forever? How long should you be able to order room service, use the spa, and hang out at the pool after you have left the hotel and stopped paying for room?

bobwaycott 16y ago
Hate to say it, but this is a really awful analogy. When you "rent a hotel room", you are doing just that--RENTING a hotel room. When you walk into Best Buy or use an online store somewhere to "buy software X", you are justifiably upset when later told that you were actually RENTING software X. You never call your local Marriott and ask how much it would cost to BUY a room for a night in town. You know you are renting. But software, like books, music, movies, houses, and cars is SOLD. Come to think of it, houses and cars are much better for analogy. Nobody ever confuses renting a home with purchasing a home. Completely different expectations and end results. Same goes for cars. Now, you are within your rights to be both dumbfounded and irate if you are told years later by the builder of the house (or car manufacturer) that you cannot sell your home or your car to another party because they have not given express permission for you to transfer ownership.
- mbyrne 16y ago
  Actually it is a perfectly adequate analogy. 1. You probably didn't read the linked article. It was essentially a complaint that people don't own licensed software and that since licensed software interacts with hardware, when people violate the terms of the license they lose the use of the software and consequently the full use of the hardware that interacts with the software. 2. The analogy with hotel rooms is the core of the article's point of view. By using the hotel analogy it revealed the weakness in the article's complaint. The fact that you don't like it either means you agree that having a license doesn't mean that your own the thing, or, that you are making a separate point, that people don't understand what they are buying, but that is not the point of the linked article.
- 16y ago

bobwaycott 16y ago

Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental. Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else.

mbyrne 16y ago
This sounds like a semantic quibble. It sounds like you purchased a "license." It's not a software rental, it is a license. Rental implies temporary use.(look it up) Versus, when you purchase a software license you can generally use the software forever. What you can or can't do is spelled out in the license agreement. If you don't agree, don't purchase (the license.) Also, Rentals don't necessarily include the licensor including "fixing all the problems" one may encounter. For example commercial real estate rental have practically none of the hand-holding that residential rentals have. "I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else." Perhaps this "right" is a moral right in your philosophy of the world but it is definitely not a legal right. If one doesn't like a law then one should work to get it changed.
rick888 16y ago
"Companies of all sizes rushed into the digital space because it was where the future, customers, and money were. But offering software, music, books, movies, and anything else as a digital download to a person who actually purchased it is and should be no different than when the customer bought a pack of floppy disks for install, a vinyl record or CD, a hardback or paperback, or a VHS or DVD. I posses as much right to re-sell or give away anything I purchased in digital form as I do to re-sell or give away my CDs, cars, home, motorcycle, or whatever else." As stated by many of the people defending piracy on HN, software isn't a tangible item. So why should it be treated like a pack of floppies or a paperback book? You aren't buying software outright. If you were, it would cost $100,000 rather than $100. You are purchasing a license to use it, which means you can use it once (and sell it if you want to one person). However, you aren't allowed to copy it to your friends. "Copyright and "licensing" are out of control. If I'm only renting software, then charge me the price of renting it and stop saying I purchased it. And, like other rentals, take on the responsibility of fixing problems I have with using the software, much the way a landlord or Enterprise Rent-a-Car takes on responsibility for your rental." Would you also be willing to pay a monthly fee for software that you download? Why should a company fix your problems forever when you only paid them a one-time fee?

pornel 16y ago

How can I sell my software for people to own without giving them right to pirate it? Honest question. I can only think of adding such user-friendly provisions in a EULA, but wouldn't that still be licensing?

stonemetal 16y ago
The same way people sell books with out giving them the right to pirate them. You sell a copy, copyright precludes their right to redistribute copies.
njharman 16y ago
Make your software require parts that you do not sell them. This is the SaaS model.
barrkel 16y ago
Borland used to have a very easy to understand license on their products: the software was licensed "like a book": http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_quot_Treat_Software_Just_Like_a_Book_quot http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_quot_...

BonsaiDen 16y ago

The Video in the article is a great example! "This Video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country"

mbyrne 16y ago
Please clarify, a great example of what?
- BonsaiDen 16y ago
  That the whole copyright thing is getting out of control, soon words will be copyrighted... Just now some german newspapers plan on copyrighting the stuff the use in their headlines, yes the sentences/words in the headlines.
  - mbyrne 16y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. It might be of interest that The Australian Court just ruled against copyright claims in headlines.I don't know that copyright is out of control, but what is out of control is the way that companies use claims of copyright ownership to bully weaker entities and that carriers cooperate with this tactic and will take down content or block it based on a worthless claim. Further that when a false claim is lodged that there seems to be no recourse or penalty. I have never heard of one.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

philwelch 16y ago

This is one of those HN submissions where the OP is a restatement of the exact same arguments we've seen for the past 5-10 years on a given issue, peppered with various examples we've all seen individually posted and discussed on HN, and the article is submitted to HN as a social cue for "let's all discuss this issue over again".

jcl 16y ago

To be fair, the Autodesk case was a little more complicated than the Slashdot summary makes it sound. A company bought Autodesk's software, then they later bought an upgrade at a discount and sold the original software to a reseller. In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.

omergertel 16y ago
I must admit I haven't read any deeper, so you may be right. I think, however, that if you combine the rulings over time, you will notice that the spirit of the law, as it is interpreted by the courts is in favor of the copyright owner. And the copyright owners are not in the business of being reasonable. As Larry Lessig points out, common sense is a rare idea in the practice of law.

nocipher 16y ago

People usually try to skirt this issue. The proponents of copyright laws stubbornly call anyone who would infringe a thief while those on the other side of the argument aptly point out the fallacy of such analogies. The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. To copy a book requires either theft from a publisher or pouring through it, page by page, and manually recreating it. The same is true of old VHS tapes. Some apparatus, not widely available, was required to make copies that could be redistributed. Since real effort was required to produce copies, copyright law could rightfully condemn those who would make copies. The ubiquity of digital technology has fundamentally changed this. Copying anything is trivial yet copyright law has been left unchanged. These laws are simply inadequate for our modern reality. An overhaul of the whole system by some smart, competent, and knowledgeable people is necessary. Unfortunately, big media has such stake in the antiquated laws, and such influence in the legislature (in the US, but very likely abroad as well), that such a change probably won't happen for a number of years. So, until then, we are stuck in this lawless landscape where everyone on every side of the argument is wrong.

ced 16y ago
The truth of the matter is that copyright law assumed a certain level of difficulty involved in the act of copying another work. I think you have it upside-down. Before the printing press, there were no copyrights. It was an honor for the author if someone took the time to copy his book. Nowadays, when you buy a book or a CD, you're paying for content, not for the medium. In that context, maybe "stealing" is not an appropriate word, but "free-loading" definitely is.
- nocipher 16y ago
  I never thought of it like that. Maybe technology does necessitate rights management. Even so, copying is trivial and available to everyone. It is not feasible to have the granular control necessary to prevent widespread copying and this is exactly the situation with which we are faced. I argue that the current laws are inadequate for dealing with the situation and, in fact, I think this is self-apparent. Your argument seems to be that what we are buying is somehow different from what we used to buy. You also seem to have downgraded the act of copying from theft to some lesser repugnant act. Both of these would suggest that we need something different from the current copyright system. You can disagree with my initial synopsis of copyright laws, and your point of contention there is likely valid, but my message wasn't that copyright laws were only useful when it was difficult to copy works, but that the laws, as they exist now, do not fit in a world where content is so liquid and decentralized. By no means am I arguing that, because of this, creators should not have their works protected, but rather that a paradigm shift is necessary to actually reach that end.