4 ms·

“Just take down the website” is disingenuous. You, and I, and those idiot judges all know it’s often much harder, and sometimes impossible, to get to the websit

“Just take down the website” is disingenuous. You, and I, and those idiot judges all know it’s often much harder, and sometimes impossible, to get to the website owners. “Abolish all copyright” is a legitimate opinion. It’s wrong,of course. But it’s possible to discuss it. Don’t demean yourself and others by starting discussions with disingenuous arguments.

betterunix2 8y ago
I am not sure abolishing copyright is "wrong," given that copyright developed as a response to a major shift in how written material was disseminated (the invention of the printing press), and that we are now seeing another major shift. A lot of the problems being argued about today, including the issue of paywall circumvention add-ons, have parallels to the historical arguments over printing. Given that copyright replaced a previous system of regulation in response to a new technology, why would we not want to replace copyright with something totally different that is better suited to a technology that has largely replaced printing?
- scarface74 8y ago
  So with copyright being removed, are you okay with companies using GPL code in their proprietary closed sourced software? The GPL is only protected by copyright laws.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    Yes, I am fine with that tradeoff, because on net society would come out ahead.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      So if you are concerned with copyright being removed because you think it will increase the freedom of information, how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? So in this hypothetical future world, not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works since anything they create can be freely copied, there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to the community through open source knowing that a for profit company can build on top of the work they did and not give back to the community. This seems like a lose lose.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        I did not say it would increase freedom of information. I just do not believe copyright is a good fit for the modern world, because it does not really work when copying is not restricted to industrial operations. Today everyone has a copying machine in their pocket or on their desk, and there is no way that applying an industrial regulation to people sitting in their homes using a commonly available tool is going to work. Keep in mind that copyrights have only existed for about three hundred years. Prior to that there was no notion that authors had a fundamental right to control the distribution of their work, yet people have been writing books (scrolls etc.) for thousands of years. Copyright was a response to what at the time was a relatively new technology, printing. It was not created for the benefit of authors, it was created for the benefit of publishers, who lobbied for the restoration of a monopoly they enjoyed under an earlier censorship law. It is almost a textbook example of regulatory capture. Instead of allowing new technologies to flourish and new business models for publishers to develop, we are currently trying to emulate the old rules, stifling new ideas (e.g. peer-to-peer systems) and entrenching old business models. It is hard to imagine the sort of technologies we missed out on for the sake of keeping copyrights relevant, or what sort of business models those technologies might have supported. I see a lose-lose in resisting change just because it is inconvenient for some big incumbent industry.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Are you willing to work for free? What “business models” do you suggest that will allow authors to get paid?
      - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
        > how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? They already do that, either legally or illegally, see here for some examples https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+violation https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+vi.... Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back. > there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to the community through open source knowing that a for profit company can build on top of the work they did and not give back to the community. Most FOSS software is actually not under a copyleft license, see https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage.... > not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works A lot of software is actually commissioned either for private use or to distribute as an app for some business of some sort, which would not be affected by this. Moreover if as you say due to not being a financial motive for people to create non-FOSS software, the chances that someone takes some FOSS software and closes it down will be much lower. Nevertheless, though unlikely, even if copyright stopped existing it does not mean that there could not be a replacement that only protects FOSS projects.
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> It’s wrong,of course Stating your personal opinions as facts and claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is at best annoying and disrespectful. Edit: *seems at best annoying and disrespectful to me. Apologies for the confusion.
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  That seems to be a personal opinion, stated as fact. And this complaint is doubly mysterious, because my post above explicitly labels that opinion as an opinion. That’s more than can be said of the vast majority of posts. Including yours. (Which I don’t fault them for. Whatever disclaimers you may want would seem to just be needless filler) (In my opinion)

betterunix2 8y ago

I am not sure abolishing copyright is "wrong," given that copyright developed as a response to a major shift in how written material was disseminated (the invention of the printing press), and that we are now seeing another major shift. A lot of the problems being argued about today, including the issue of paywall circumvention add-ons, have parallels to the historical arguments over printing. Given that copyright replaced a previous system of regulation in response to a new technology, why would we not want to replace copyright with something totally different that is better suited to a technology that has largely replaced printing?

scarface74 8y ago
So with copyright being removed, are you okay with companies using GPL code in their proprietary closed sourced software? The GPL is only protected by copyright laws.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  Yes, I am fine with that tradeoff, because on net society would come out ahead.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    So if you are concerned with copyright being removed because you think it will increase the freedom of information, how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? So in this hypothetical future world, not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works since anything they create can be freely copied, there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to the community through open source knowing that a for profit company can build on top of the work they did and not give back to the community. This seems like a lose lose.
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      I did not say it would increase freedom of information. I just do not believe copyright is a good fit for the modern world, because it does not really work when copying is not restricted to industrial operations. Today everyone has a copying machine in their pocket or on their desk, and there is no way that applying an industrial regulation to people sitting in their homes using a commonly available tool is going to work. Keep in mind that copyrights have only existed for about three hundred years. Prior to that there was no notion that authors had a fundamental right to control the distribution of their work, yet people have been writing books (scrolls etc.) for thousands of years. Copyright was a response to what at the time was a relatively new technology, printing. It was not created for the benefit of authors, it was created for the benefit of publishers, who lobbied for the restoration of a monopoly they enjoyed under an earlier censorship law. It is almost a textbook example of regulatory capture. Instead of allowing new technologies to flourish and new business models for publishers to develop, we are currently trying to emulate the old rules, stifling new ideas (e.g. peer-to-peer systems) and entrenching old business models. It is hard to imagine the sort of technologies we missed out on for the sake of keeping copyrights relevant, or what sort of business models those technologies might have supported. I see a lose-lose in resisting change just because it is inconvenient for some big incumbent industry.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Are you willing to work for free? What “business models” do you suggest that will allow authors to get paid?
    - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
      > how will that not do just the opposite when companies can take open source code and lock it down? They already do that, either legally or illegally, see here for some examples https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+violation https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed&type=license+vi.... Plus most FOSS software is being developed by volunteers for free without the resources to fight back. > there will also not be an altruistic motive for people to give back to the community through open source knowing that a for profit company can build on top of the work they did and not give back to the community. Most FOSS software is actually not under a copyleft license, see https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://blog.github.com/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage.... > not only will their not be a financial motive for people to create works A lot of software is actually commissioned either for private use or to distribute as an app for some business of some sort, which would not be affected by this. Moreover if as you say due to not being a financial motive for people to create non-FOSS software, the chances that someone takes some FOSS software and closes it down will be much lower. Nevertheless, though unlikely, even if copyright stopped existing it does not mean that there could not be a replacement that only protects FOSS projects.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

> It’s wrong,of course Stating your personal opinions as facts and claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is at best annoying and disrespectful. Edit: *seems at best annoying and disrespectful to me. Apologies for the confusion.

IAmEveryone 8y ago
That seems to be a personal opinion, stated as fact. And this complaint is doubly mysterious, because my post above explicitly labels that opinion as an opinion. That’s more than can be said of the vast majority of posts. Including yours. (Which I don’t fault them for. Whatever disclaimers you may want would seem to just be needless filler) (In my opinion)