4 ms·

It's a basic right, if you spend a year writing a book, you are the one who have the rights to sell it and thus make money from your work. Same with software, a

by adsr 15y ago

It's a basic right, if you spend a year writing a book, you are the one who have the rights to sell it and thus make money from your work. Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright.

gnaritas 15y ago
You assume it to be, but that's the point of this discussion, it isn't or shouldn't be. If you spend a year doing something no one wants to pay for, you don't have a right to force them to.
- adsr 15y ago
  Of course, but if no one wants to buy it no one is forced to either.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    That's not the point; once released, why should people not be allowed to freely copy and share it? Why do you think you get to control what other people do with information?
    - adsr 15y ago
      It's not only about copying and sharing, but also who has the right to sell and distribute. If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        > If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. Ug.. it's pointless to state how things currently work in a meta discussion about whether the current method makes sense. I'm asking you to justify copyright, not explain it. I repeat, why do you think you should get to control what other people do with information? > I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work. And I say you shouldn't, so justify your belief. You should be able to control yourself, that's it; not the products of your labor when copied. Information is not property, you don't have less of it if I copy it and you should have no say over me copying it regardless of who produced it.
        adsr 15y ago
        As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something.
        gnaritas 15y ago
        > If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without copyright because you'd know up front you can't make money selling it? > The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. No it can't. Property is physical, if I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your novel, you don't even know it happened. Physical property and intellectual property aren't at all the same. > It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something. No, it really isn't.
        adsr 15y ago
        You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.
        gnaritas 15y ago
icebraining 15y ago
>It's a basic right Right now, it's a right, yes (what exactly does 'basic' mean?). The question is whether it should be. >Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright. The GPL is just an hack, using copyright to achieve a goal. If you were rewriting IP law, you could very well institute copyleft without copyright.
- adsr 15y ago
  GPL is good, since it's up to the author to chose if he/she want's to license it under the terms of the license. It's the authors role of a copyright owner that makes this possible. Forcing everyone to share their work seems like a bigger violation than copyright. Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    You wouldn't need to force - you could just give the author the right to demand that or not. >Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner. Yes for the GPL, no for copyleft. The GPL was simply a mechanism that Stallman et all found to enable copyleft without having the power to rewrite the law. If you did have the power to rewrite the law - and if you were to eliminate copyright, you would - it'd be perfectly possible to add a 'copyleft right' without relying on copyright. The problem is that in Common law all those rights are based to the Copyright concept, and that blinds people to assume that must be. Here in Europe, we have 'authorship rights' - such as attribution - and they are not based on copyright; copyright is just one of them. You could take it out without affecting other authorship rights.
seabee 15y ago
That's a non sequitur. Copyright does not grant you a living; it grants you the opportunity for one. Few writers make a living from writing, not because they are denied the opportunity, but because not enough people are willing to pay for it, or even interested in it! The same is true with other artists.

by adsr 15y ago

gnaritas 15y ago

You assume it to be, but that's the point of this discussion, it isn't or shouldn't be. If you spend a year doing something no one wants to pay for, you don't have a right to force them to.

adsr 15y ago
Of course, but if no one wants to buy it no one is forced to either.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  That's not the point; once released, why should people not be allowed to freely copy and share it? Why do you think you get to control what other people do with information?
  - adsr 15y ago
    It's not only about copying and sharing, but also who has the right to sell and distribute. If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      > If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. Ug.. it's pointless to state how things currently work in a meta discussion about whether the current method makes sense. I'm asking you to justify copyright, not explain it. I repeat, why do you think you should get to control what other people do with information? > I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work. And I say you shouldn't, so justify your belief. You should be able to control yourself, that's it; not the products of your labor when copied. Information is not property, you don't have less of it if I copy it and you should have no say over me copying it regardless of who produced it.
      - adsr 15y ago
        As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something.
        gnaritas 15y ago
        > If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without copyright because you'd know up front you can't make money selling it? > The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. No it can't. Property is physical, if I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your novel, you don't even know it happened. Physical property and intellectual property aren't at all the same. > It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something. No, it really isn't.
        adsr 15y ago
        You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.
        gnaritas 15y ago

icebraining 15y ago

>It's a basic right Right now, it's a right, yes (what exactly does 'basic' mean?). The question is whether it should be. >Same with software, a GPL license would be worthless without copyright. The GPL is just an hack, using copyright to achieve a goal. If you were rewriting IP law, you could very well institute copyleft without copyright.

adsr 15y ago
GPL is good, since it's up to the author to chose if he/she want's to license it under the terms of the license. It's the authors role of a copyright owner that makes this possible. Forcing everyone to share their work seems like a bigger violation than copyright. Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner.
- icebraining 15y ago
  You wouldn't need to force - you could just give the author the right to demand that or not. >Lastly, a GPL license wouldn't be possible to enforce without copyright, or the concept of a copyright owner. Yes for the GPL, no for copyleft. The GPL was simply a mechanism that Stallman et all found to enable copyleft without having the power to rewrite the law. If you did have the power to rewrite the law - and if you were to eliminate copyright, you would - it'd be perfectly possible to add a 'copyleft right' without relying on copyright. The problem is that in Common law all those rights are based to the Copyright concept, and that blinds people to assume that must be. Here in Europe, we have 'authorship rights' - such as attribution - and they are not based on copyright; copyright is just one of them. You could take it out without affecting other authorship rights.

seabee 15y ago

That's a non sequitur. Copyright does not grant you a living; it grants you the opportunity for one. Few writers make a living from writing, not because they are denied the opportunity, but because not enough people are willing to pay for it, or even interested in it! The same is true with other artists.