4 ms·

Using copyright for control and censorship, instead of remuneration.

by deogeo 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago
You mean like the GPL3 is using copyright to control which companies can use code?
- catalogia 7y ago
  The GPLv3 doesn't do that. The GPLv3 allows any company to use the code, provided they're willing to abide by some reasonable terms (which they are free to view as unreasonable, just as I am free to view them as unreasonable.) The GPLv3 is not being used to create artificial scarcity of popular culture for corporate profit. That might be a difference you're keen on abstracting away, but I think it's a pretty big difference.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Disney uses copyright to control distribution to commercial entities and those commercial entities - cinemas - think the demands are unreasonable for their business model. TiVo and I am sure other commercial entities think that the GPL has unreasonable demands.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      This attempt to morally equivocate an international corporation denying people access to popular culture, and volunteer developers giving away source code for free on the condition that anybody who wants to sell it also distribute the source code, is absurd. Bordering on offensive.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        They created the “popular culture” authors of GPL software didn’t whine about Microsoft not open sourcing Windows, they created their own software. Authors of GPL software have the right to distribute their software as they please...just as Disney does.
        catalogia 7y ago
        Disney's legal right is not in dispute. A morally equivalence is the matter disputed. You can only hope to equivocate the two by abstracting away "minor" matters like the vastly different power dynamics involved, or the nature of terms of the licenses in question. >authors of GPL software didn’t whine about Microsoft not open sourcing Windows We both know that's not true, but it's also not relevant.
        scarface74 7y ago
        The entire software market was about proprietary servers running proprietary servers backed by corporations. Open source software took over the server market. Blumhouse and Tyler Perry Studios are evidence that you can be successful without budgets of $100 million budgets.
        catalogia 7y ago
        None of that comes anywhere close to justifying your equivalence of Disney and free software developers. Rather you seem to be trying to walk that back by instead talking about other things. The simple fact of the matter is the nature of the licenses in question are very different, and the nature of the licensers in question are very different. They share little other than a relation to copyright. The social impact of their use of copyright, which is the matter of contention, is worlds apart.
        scarface74 7y ago
        No, I think that any time posters on HN want the government to intervene and dictate what others can do with their content would be horrified if the same policies applied to their sacred cows. Whether it be GPL or the right for companies like ElasticCo and Mongo to forbid cloud providers from offering their software as a service. What’s the difference between Disney not allowing their content on Netflix or in theaters so they can exclusively use it on Disney+ and ElasticCo not allowing third party cloud providers to allow their software to be sold as a service so that they can exclusively offer managed services? Do you want the government to step in and tell you how you can distribute your work?
- deogeo 7y ago
  You would have strictly fewer rights if the code did not include the GPL. It lets you use the code with no restrictions whatsoever, provided you place no restrictions on your users. And if you don't like that, you're still free to negotiate different terms with the owner of the GPLed code. Really, you're complaining that the GPL takes away your right to take away rights.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The author of that software has the right to distribute software as they please because of copyright law. The government/copyright protects creators and allows them to dictate terms of distribution just like it protects Disney.

Using copyright for control and censorship, instead of remuneration.

by deogeo 7y ago

Using copyright for control and censorship, instead of remuneration.

scarface74 7y ago

You mean like the GPL3 is using copyright to control which companies can use code?

catalogia 7y ago
The GPLv3 doesn't do that. The GPLv3 allows any company to use the code, provided they're willing to abide by some reasonable terms (which they are free to view as unreasonable, just as I am free to view them as unreasonable.) The GPLv3 is not being used to create artificial scarcity of popular culture for corporate profit. That might be a difference you're keen on abstracting away, but I think it's a pretty big difference.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Disney uses copyright to control distribution to commercial entities and those commercial entities - cinemas - think the demands are unreasonable for their business model. TiVo and I am sure other commercial entities think that the GPL has unreasonable demands.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    This attempt to morally equivocate an international corporation denying people access to popular culture, and volunteer developers giving away source code for free on the condition that anybody who wants to sell it also distribute the source code, is absurd. Bordering on offensive.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      They created the “popular culture” authors of GPL software didn’t whine about Microsoft not open sourcing Windows, they created their own software. Authors of GPL software have the right to distribute their software as they please...just as Disney does.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        Disney's legal right is not in dispute. A morally equivalence is the matter disputed. You can only hope to equivocate the two by abstracting away "minor" matters like the vastly different power dynamics involved, or the nature of terms of the licenses in question. >authors of GPL software didn’t whine about Microsoft not open sourcing Windows We both know that's not true, but it's also not relevant.
        scarface74 7y ago
        The entire software market was about proprietary servers running proprietary servers backed by corporations. Open source software took over the server market. Blumhouse and Tyler Perry Studios are evidence that you can be successful without budgets of $100 million budgets.
        catalogia 7y ago
        None of that comes anywhere close to justifying your equivalence of Disney and free software developers. Rather you seem to be trying to walk that back by instead talking about other things. The simple fact of the matter is the nature of the licenses in question are very different, and the nature of the licensers in question are very different. They share little other than a relation to copyright. The social impact of their use of copyright, which is the matter of contention, is worlds apart.
        scarface74 7y ago
        No, I think that any time posters on HN want the government to intervene and dictate what others can do with their content would be horrified if the same policies applied to their sacred cows. Whether it be GPL or the right for companies like ElasticCo and Mongo to forbid cloud providers from offering their software as a service. What’s the difference between Disney not allowing their content on Netflix or in theaters so they can exclusively use it on Disney+ and ElasticCo not allowing third party cloud providers to allow their software to be sold as a service so that they can exclusively offer managed services? Do you want the government to step in and tell you how you can distribute your work?
deogeo 7y ago
You would have strictly fewer rights if the code did not include the GPL. It lets you use the code with no restrictions whatsoever, provided you place no restrictions on your users. And if you don't like that, you're still free to negotiate different terms with the owner of the GPLed code. Really, you're complaining that the GPL takes away your right to take away rights.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The author of that software has the right to distribute software as they please because of copyright law. The government/copyright protects creators and allows them to dictate terms of distribution just like it protects Disney.