9 ms·
Its the same law that protect people from others stealing GPL code. I assume you're in favor of that?
by la_barba 7y ago
Its the same law that protect people from others stealing GPL code. I assume you're in favor of that?
- lixtra 7y agoBut a vastly different spirit.
- la_barba 7y agoWell, the author of a work should be able to control certain key aspects of distribution. Either you agree or disagree. Anything else is just a special-pleading logical fallacy.
- claudiawerner 7y agoI don't think that's true at all. We can acknowledge qualitative differences and aims and indeed this "special pleading" is the foundation of all law - we select based on our own conceptions of what is right which laws to make; to say that it is special pleading is to say that laws against those actions which cause harm is special pleading - after all, what's so special about harm? Nevertheless, it is possible to imagine a world in which one restriction (or liberalization) is made but another is not. While this requires a competent legislature and judiciary, there is no reason to think it is impossible; the difficulty in making an analytic distinction is only a small speed bump.
- la_barba 7y agoWell, sure, thats all well and good in theory. How do you deal with existing laws though? Its hypocritical to tell someone to not "steal" GPL code, when you're downloading the latest Avengers movie yourself. I'm all for changing the law, but I don't agree with the approach that copyright law can only be fixed via civil disobedience.
- adrianN 7y agoThe author already doesn't control all aspects of distribution. It's for example okay to use copyrighted works for satire in many legislations. So lawmakers already agree that there are legitimate uses of copyrighted works that are out of control of the copyright holder. If we wante to we could extend such uses to include filesharing.
- la_barba 7y agoYes, and that would be good. Alls im saying is, follow the law, or change it, but don't advocate breaking it ;) (I admit I too pirated music and sw during my college days, but I don't anymore..)
- athrowaway3z 7y agoYou are creating a false dichotomy by using the word stealing in the first place. If you accidentally take a picture of my shitty origami art project you are not stealing If you walk into a factory and take the mold for a military sonar device you are stealing. At what point does changing the first story into the second story does it become stealing? Either you can pinpoint a minimal set of changes in which it becomes stealing OR 'stealing' vs 'not stealing' is insufficient to accurately describe a situation
- la_barba 7y agoYes, stealing applies primarily to physical property or physical items of value. And the word hacker now has a second meaning with a negative connotation. Words outgrow their original meaning as the language evolves. I'm not advocating for the word 'steal' to be a legal definition of anything. I'm simply using it on an internet forum in a casual context.
- mirchibajji 7y agoIt isn't just the author personally controlling though. It is about using tax payer's money to do so.
- jfk13 7y agoAs a society, we have generally agreed that the author has certain rights of control, and as a society (i.e. using taxpayers' money) we will enforce those rights on behalf of the author. How is that different from society agreeing that it'll use taxpayers' money - through the police force, courts, etc - to uphold my right to keep control of my wallet, my car and my house, in the face of someone who might want to take them from me? My possession of these things is personal, yet society supports/enforces it when challenged.
- umanwizard 7y agoHow so? "You are not allowed to use my work unless you agree to particular conditions that I care about". In one case the condition is "I get paid", in the other "you have to contribute back your changes", but it's a similar underlying concept.
- contras1970 7y agothat's a gross mischaracterization of the situation. copyright doesn't mean "i get paid", it means "i get to withhold" (see all the out-of-print books, abandonware, etc). GPL does not mean "you have to contribute back your changes" at all: "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourc... one is about taking access away (for whatever goal), the other is about taking that option away (for the benefit of users).
- PeterisP 7y agoGPL is a way to ensure that this particular piece of software stays free forever. One thing that GPL definitely doesn't do is "you have to contribute back your changes", it's fully legal to modify and use GPL-based systems and not contribute any changes back; the only thing that GPL prohibits is enforcing copyright restrictions on others when (if!) I pass the software on to them. In a legislative regime where all software is free, that goal is achieved without GPL so GPL isn't needed anymore; I get the permission to use, modify and redistribute all software as if I had received it with the GPL.
- cpach 7y agoThe status quo and abandoning copyright aren’t the only alternatives. It would also be possible to reform copyright. One obvious change would be to shorten the time that a work can be copyrighted.
- Rhinobird 7y agoLike going back to the original 14 years?
- __david__ 7y agoAnything less than the current "infinite" would be a pleasant change.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> Anything less than the current "infinite" would be a pleasant change. It's a long time, but it's not infinite. New works started entering the public domain again on January 1, 2019.
- ixwt 7y agoThat's yet to be determined. Disney is a big influence on the length of US copyright protections. Let's see what happens come 2024: > On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> That's yet to be determined. Disney is a big influence on the length of US copyright protections. Let's see what happens come 2024 I'm well aware of Disney's role in copyright law. Disney's opportunity to do extend the term was before Dec. 31, 2018. That's how they extended copyright durations in the past - preventing any new works from entering the public domain at all. It's much harder for them to retroactively amend the copyright term now that some of those works have begun to enter the public domain.
- adrianN 7y agoI'm okay with people stealing GPL code to look at it with friends over a few beers and popcorn.
- bunderbunder 7y agoI don't know that this is all-or-nothing. The same law that protects people from stealing GPL code also protects movie studios from having their content copied and redistributed without permission. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the GPL family of licenses' restrictions on exactly how you can use GPL software are legally difficult to discern from media companies' efforts to restrict how we are allowed to consume their works. But there are things that I suspect would be easier to disentangle. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of provision where copyrighted works can more easily fall into the public domain when they've been abandoned by their copyright holders, for example. We could also stand to roll back some of the power grabs that media companies have managed to get codified.
- kzrdude 7y agoCopyright reform is not about burning copyright to the ground.
- marssaxman 7y agoBurning copyright to the ground would be a significant improvement over the mess we have now. Artificial scarcity enriches a few at the expense of the many; hardly a desirable state of affairs.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoI appreciate the sentiment that leads one to such considerations, but really all I see with no copyright is that creators will be completely exploited and the only people making money from people's works will be corporations who lock stuff up with DRM, or with other IP, or sui generis licenses, or simply through physical gateways like only showing movies in cinemas. I don't see that this would lead to greater access to new media creations (though obviously past media would all be open to use). Short copyright terms - someone mentioned 20 years max, with registration needed after 5 years. That sort of thing is better, far better than both longer copyright and no copyright. The maximum term, IMO, should enable people to enjoy for free-gratis in their middle ages the media of their youth and build on that freely (libre) as inspiration to create cultural works for themselves and those that follow. Being able to have open, uninhibited access to one's own cultural inspirations well within one's working lifetime seems ideal to make sure that the demos get something worthwhile out of the deal. Works restricted by DRM can't enter the public domain and so should be exempt from protection by copyright, though I'd allow some sort of deposit system whereby companies could put un-bound works in escrow, and so still be allowed to get copyright protections.
- baddox 7y agoWhat you describe in the first paragraph seems like a detailed and accurate description of the current state of affairs, with strong copyright law essentially written by the large corporations you describe. Anyone who is making a modest living producing their own original IP is not doing so because of IP protection laws, because they surely cannot afford to litigate (and they certainly can't afford to lobby to get the laws to favor them).
- Endy 7y agoFor my own part, outside of OS and security software, which I feel should be 100% monolithic and black box, I'm fine with the idea of all text and code of every program and file being available to anyone who may wish to improve it.
- vageli 7y ago> For my own part, outside of OS and security software, which I feel should be 100% monolithic and black box, I'm fine with the idea of all text and code of every program and file being available to anyone who may wish to improve it. Curious to hear why you think OS and security software should be black boxes and not open.
- Endy 7y agoBecause I don't trust anyone. I feel that human interference is a security problem that can't be overcome and should be reduced by every possible means.
- ativzzz 7y agoBy that same logic, you shouldn't trust the creators of the monolithic black box either. So you can't trust anyone, except yourself and the OS only you have access to. In general, do you not find carrying this level of paranoia on a daily basis is simply oppressive to your own well being?
- Endy 7y agoYou're right. The preference would be that each person has access to a single part of the black box and no access to anyone or any other part of the whole shebang. Either that or the old way of dealing with people involved in things that have to remain secret. Of course, you behead enough OS devs and soon there won't be any. As far as my daily life, no not really. I just live a life where I grant very few people a view into the things I consider private, and ensure that every two or three people know contradictory things without knowing the parts that put them together. It leads to a robust but distant social web.
- sandov 7y agoNot OP, but I'm against all forms of intellectual "property". So yeah, I'm not against "stealing" GPL code, from a legal standpoint. I know I'm an extremist though(statistically speaking), even in this forum.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoBut you watch it. Read it. Play with it. You like doing those things? Do you pay for those things? Or download them for free?
- clarry 7y agoDoes it matter? Nobody loses a penny when you download it. Someone made it because they wanted to make it or got paid to make it. The rest is history.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoYeah they did. They lost ROI.
- clarry 7y agoThey never had it in the first place. You can't lose something you never had.
- RHSeeger 7y agoAt one end of the spectrum, everyone pays to see every movie they want to see. The movie makers make bank and keep making movies. At the other end of the spectrum, everyone pirates the movies they want to see. The movie makers stop making movies because they won't make money on them. In between the two ends is a large grey area. Pretending that it's always acceptable to pirate any movie you want to see is akin to saying that you don't want the movie studios to make movies anymore. But pretending that every movie pirated costs the studios a ROI equal to the cost of buying the movie is disingenuous, too.
- zanny 7y agoThe GPL is hijacking IP to create a consumer right to repair that should exist but doesn't. Total IP abolition in combination with a strongly enshrined right to repair, which would necessitate access to source code of binaries given, would be perfectly in the spirit of the free software movement.
- takeda 7y agoI would add that it RMS would actually prefer that over current GPL. GPL was created as a response to current IP laws trying to use it against itself.
- monocasa 7y agoRMS himself is against the idea of intellectual property; it's just that copyleft is the closest you can get in a system that supports IP. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
- 0xffff2 7y agoMy reading of the linked rant is that RMS is against lumping copyright, patents and trademarks under the umbrella of "intellectual property", but not against those things individually. I don't see anything there to support the idea that RMS is against the idea of copyright (that being the section of "IP" that the GPL most directly addresses).
- monocasa 7y agoGrabbed the wrong rant https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm...
- stordoff 7y agoRMS's stance is that he is against the idea of 'intellectual property' as an umbrella term for copyright, patents, and trademarks, as it conflates three (or more) largely unrelated areas of law. This does not necessarily mean he is against any of these ideas per se.
- monocasa 7y agoGrabbed the wrong rant https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm...
- contras1970 7y agoGPL "abuses" copyright to prevent conveyors from closing off software from its users. make the provisions of GPL the law, and copyright of software can go.
- 0xffff2 7y agoWhy would we want to make GPL the law? Any reduction in the scope of copyright is far more likely to move in the general direction of CC0 than GPL.
- belorn 7y agoGPL is in the word of its author Richard Stallman a strategy to maximize the amount of users that can exercise liberty over their own life in regard to software. I think it is a rather nice trade to give up GPL if we get in return the right to repair to deal with DRM and no copyright to allow for sharing and modifying software.
- Findeton 7y agoBSD licenses wouldn't be required if copyright didn't exist.
- stordoff 7y agoFWIW: What The Swedish Pirate Party Wants With Patents, Trademarks, And Copyright (2012): > Copyright must be reformed. We’d like to keep the copyright monopoly for commercial use (but with shorter, more sensible terms of protection). The big problem is that copyright has expanded in the past 20 years, going from being something that only corporations needed to care about, into something that criminalizes the entire young generation (and more and more people who aren’t even particularly young anymore). > The Swedish Pirate Party wants to; Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing [...] At most 20 years of protection from the publication of a work. [...] Registration after five years. [...] Sensible regulation for quotations, parodies, and remixes [...] A ban on DRM http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/13/what-the-swedish-pirate-party-wants-with-patents-trademarks-and-copyright/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/13/what-the-swedish-pirate-part... Richard Stallman (2012): > I agree with all three of these positions. I do suggest, however, that it would be better not to group together these three issues and only these three. Why would anyone group together these three unrelated laws? I suspect it reflects the mistaken concept of "intellectual property". http://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#16_October_2012_(Swedish_Pirate_Partys_platform_positions) http://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-jul-oct.html#16_Octobe... You can reform copyright without rendering the GPL unworkable. I asked Rick Falkvinge about this a number of years ago (2008-2010), and he seemed quite confident that the GPL would still be viable given their proposed reforms. (Current Pirate Parties appear to use similar policies, such as Pirate Party UK:"A fair and balanced copyright regime that is suitable for the 21st century is an absolute necessity for the UK to remain competitive in a global economy that is built upon ideas and innovation. Copyright should give artists and innovators the chance to make money from their work; however, that needs to be balanced with the rights of society as a whole. We will work for copyright reform and reduce copyright terms to 10 years to balance everyone's needs." https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/policy/culture/home https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/policy/culture/home)
- takeda 7y agoThe reason GPL exists is because of current IP. Stallman believes in all source code being open and treated no different than a cooking recipe. GPL was created to use existing copyright laws to fight with proprietary software. So if we had no copyright, GPL wouldn't even be needed.
- la_barba 7y ago> Stallman believes in all source code being open and treated no different than a cooking recipe. Not exactly. He doesn't want people modifying the recipe and keeping it a secret. Or atleast, not distributing food made from that recipe. (I know that analogy breaks down here.. but I tried!)
- Iv 7y agoNo. I'd rather have no GPL and no copyright. But Stallman and the pirate party have come up with a pretty nice proposal in the end: a much shorter time limit on copyright that can be extended if you give more rights to the user.