5 ms·

I don't see how this is at all supposed to be convincing. Furthermore: "In my lifetime, I expect the copyright cancer to complete its metastasis. I expect that

by nrhtr 13y ago

I don't see how this is at all supposed to be convincing. Furthermore: "In my lifetime, I expect the copyright cancer to complete its metastasis. I expect that old-fashioned physical property rights will decline by the same magnitude. When I reach my deathbed and find myself ready to will that old-fashioned property to my unlikely-to-exist children, I'll be sure that document has a nice big public domain dedication at the bottom." If he thinks so little of software copyright because it's "old-fashioned" and cancer-ridden, shouldn't he think the same of physical property law? Is this the kind of person that would steal your wallet too?

gw 13y ago
This piece isn't meant to be an indictment of intellectual property in general (I'll save that for another time). I'm arguing that even those who believe in copyright should agree that it should be optional. The fact that it is now encompassing all creative work, regardless of the creator's desires, is what I regard as cancerous.
- warp 13y ago
  I agree copyright SHOULD be optional, it should NOT be automatic. However, it currently is. Which then means if I use your public domain code in a project, I am probably infringing your copyright because there is no such thing as public domain in my country. So, I cannot use your code. Many open source projects are developed by volunteers around the world, they will also not be able to legally use your code. If this is your intent, that is fine, it is your choice. Usually that is not what people intend when they try to put their code in the public domain.
  - gw 13y ago
    Understood, but not being able to "legally" use my code is not the same thing as not being able to use my code. Public domain is an important enough principle that I don't think we should be ceding so readily, just so we can appease the dysfunctional copyright regimes around the world.
    - warp 13y ago
      If a project contains code which infringes someone's copyright, then no professional is going to touch that code. Companies with any kind of legal department will not use it, linux distributions will not ship it, etc..
  - michaelt 13y ago
    Are MIT or BSD licenses any better in this regard? I mean, I'm sure the american boilerplate written by american lawyers would hold up in an american court - but if I'm not under the American legal system, how do I know I don't need different boilerplate? For all I know the MIT license might be (say) invalid in France, because it's written in the wrong language, or invalid in Russia because the the first paragraph isn't written in ALL CAPS, or invalid in Taiwan because it doesn't expressly waive moral rights to the integrity of the work.
icebraining 13y ago
If he thinks so little of software copyright because it's "old-fashioned" and cancer-ridden, shouldn't he think the same of physical property law? There are perfectly valid reasons do disagree with physical private property, but repudiating copyright does not entail repudiating private property. Physical goods have a significant difference, which makes property, if not indispensable, at least reasonably sensible: scarcity. Each tangible good is scarce, and its use by multiple people is conflictive. Property as an institution reduces conflict by determining who can use each good at any time. Copyrighted goods have no need for such mechanism - you can just create more. See "Against Intellectual Property": http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf‎ http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf‎
maxerickson 13y ago
The text you quote literally contains the phrase "old-fashioned physical property rights". It seems to preempt the question you are asking. I get the sense that the "old-fashioned property" in the last sentence is referring to physical stuff as much as to software.
- nrhtr 13y ago
  You're right. I didn't make myself very clear and now I'm not even sure I can remember the exact point I was trying to make!

by nrhtr 13y ago

gw 13y ago

This piece isn't meant to be an indictment of intellectual property in general (I'll save that for another time). I'm arguing that even those who believe in copyright should agree that it should be optional. The fact that it is now encompassing all creative work, regardless of the creator's desires, is what I regard as cancerous.

warp 13y ago
I agree copyright SHOULD be optional, it should NOT be automatic. However, it currently is. Which then means if I use your public domain code in a project, I am probably infringing your copyright because there is no such thing as public domain in my country. So, I cannot use your code. Many open source projects are developed by volunteers around the world, they will also not be able to legally use your code. If this is your intent, that is fine, it is your choice. Usually that is not what people intend when they try to put their code in the public domain.
- gw 13y ago
  Understood, but not being able to "legally" use my code is not the same thing as not being able to use my code. Public domain is an important enough principle that I don't think we should be ceding so readily, just so we can appease the dysfunctional copyright regimes around the world.
  - warp 13y ago
    If a project contains code which infringes someone's copyright, then no professional is going to touch that code. Companies with any kind of legal department will not use it, linux distributions will not ship it, etc..
- michaelt 13y ago
  Are MIT or BSD licenses any better in this regard? I mean, I'm sure the american boilerplate written by american lawyers would hold up in an american court - but if I'm not under the American legal system, how do I know I don't need different boilerplate? For all I know the MIT license might be (say) invalid in France, because it's written in the wrong language, or invalid in Russia because the the first paragraph isn't written in ALL CAPS, or invalid in Taiwan because it doesn't expressly waive moral rights to the integrity of the work.

icebraining 13y ago

If he thinks so little of software copyright because it's "old-fashioned" and cancer-ridden, shouldn't he think the same of physical property law? There are perfectly valid reasons do disagree with physical private property, but repudiating copyright does not entail repudiating private property. Physical goods have a significant difference, which makes property, if not indispensable, at least reasonably sensible: scarcity. Each tangible good is scarce, and its use by multiple people is conflictive. Property as an institution reduces conflict by determining who can use each good at any time. Copyrighted goods have no need for such mechanism - you can just create more. See "Against Intellectual Property": http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf‎ http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf‎

maxerickson 13y ago

The text you quote literally contains the phrase "old-fashioned physical property rights". It seems to preempt the question you are asking. I get the sense that the "old-fashioned property" in the last sentence is referring to physical stuff as much as to software.

nrhtr 13y ago
You're right. I didn't make myself very clear and now I'm not even sure I can remember the exact point I was trying to make!