2 ms·

I've thought about it more than you have I suspect. I notice that the argument has moved from "absolutely necessary" to "not such a good world". But let's look

by phaemon 13y ago

I've thought about it more than you have I suspect. I notice that the argument has moved from "absolutely necessary" to "not such a good world". But let's look at your arguments anyway: Books: so what? The author has made money from the sale of the books ("selling really well") and will continue to do so, particularly with the free publicity. They have the "authorised" copy and are first to market. How does it hurt them that someone else also makes money? Magazines and Journals: Go ahead. Do it. I assure you absolutely no-one will complain because no-one will even notice. They're disposable media. Seriously, no one will care. EDIT: Sorry, missed TV and radio: are you serious? Do you know how much TV channels pay to be the first to show a particular show? You can't possibly think that they do that just for fun, right? Radio just wants listeners...being a poor copy of another station is not going to get you listeners. Plays: ....and never gets any work again. Or just have them sign a contract up front like most working people do. OSS: Just like BSD you mean? Looks like a pretty good world to me. And who was screaming other than you? And no, not all things should be balanced: we didn't get "limited term slavery" when full slavery was abolished.

x0054 13y ago
Most people on HN are either programmers or in the startup world. I'll assume that you are the same. In that case, I challenge you, if you think copyright is bad. Release ALL of your work, including all the code you have on your servers, every bit of code you have running your project, and every bit of code you have powering your business, into public domain! Today! Why not? I am sure you'll make money from it still, why shouldn't I and others try to make some money from it too. What, you don't think it's the same? Why not? Is it because you enjoy the kind of work that has automatic intellectual property protection in the form of server side code or binary compiled code? While book/music/movie authors entire final work product has to be made public in order for that author to monetize it. Yes, first to market is great. But when second to market literally means a day later in todays day and age, where is the advantage? Any way, if you really believe what you are saying, start public domain releasing all of your work, you have the option. Prove that you can make a living that way, and maybe others will follow you and the world will change. Though, something tells me you will fail, but I can be proven wrong. As to your slavery argument, ignoring the historical facts which truly resulted in the awful circumstance of "limited term slavery," the condition of being a slave or a free person is not an example of 2 extremes. Having a bunch of white people own a bunch of black people as slavery is extremely bad and evil. Not having slavery is good, it's basically norm. The other extreme would be to free all the black slaves, and give them a white person as a slave each. Clearly and evil extreme as well.
- phaemon 13y ago
  I see, so you admit that your argument that authors required copyright to make money was nonsense? Now it's just something they should have according to you? And since your first argument failed, you're now trying to attack me. Typical. I'm a bad example. The company I'm currently working with uses all OSS code and it is already released. I don't have the authors permission to make it public domain, I'm afraid. I'm restricted by copyright... All my personal work is indeed released without copyright restrictions, though I'd be tempted to use a non-commercial clause just because it's an un-even playing field: I don't get to ignore other people's copyright just because I don't use it on my work. In short, your argument is basically "if you don't like slavery, just release all your slaves". I'm restricted by copyright. So are you. Why should I accept that condition just so some lazy sod can make money more easily?
  - x0054 13y ago
    1. No, I still think that copyright law is absolutely necessary in order for some types of authors to be able to make money and sustain them selves through the sale of their works. Specifically film makers and book authors, because that's what I am familiar with most. 2. I am not attacking you personally. I am challenging you to practice what you preach. You may use exclusively OSS code in your business, but the glue code that runs the OSS bits, the business model, your list of suppliers, etc. All of that is IP, release that. I don't actually expect you to do that, you know perfectly well that I think that would be unfair. I am simply trying to make you see how exposed people like book authors are. Their entire business is on display, for everyone to see. Their book is the entirety of their work, and unlike you, without copyright, they would have no protection what so ever. Even without copyright, you would always have a choice whether to make your work public, they would not. 3. Stop comparing Copyright Law to Slavery. It's insulting to the memory of the people who actually were slaves to compare ownership right in specific expression with ownership rights in other human beings.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      EDIT: Never mind. I don't see any point in this conversation. Have a good weekend.

by phaemon 13y ago

x0054 13y ago

Most people on HN are either programmers or in the startup world. I'll assume that you are the same. In that case, I challenge you, if you think copyright is bad. Release ALL of your work, including all the code you have on your servers, every bit of code you have running your project, and every bit of code you have powering your business, into public domain! Today! Why not? I am sure you'll make money from it still, why shouldn't I and others try to make some money from it too. What, you don't think it's the same? Why not? Is it because you enjoy the kind of work that has automatic intellectual property protection in the form of server side code or binary compiled code? While book/music/movie authors entire final work product has to be made public in order for that author to monetize it. Yes, first to market is great. But when second to market literally means a day later in todays day and age, where is the advantage? Any way, if you really believe what you are saying, start public domain releasing all of your work, you have the option. Prove that you can make a living that way, and maybe others will follow you and the world will change. Though, something tells me you will fail, but I can be proven wrong. As to your slavery argument, ignoring the historical facts which truly resulted in the awful circumstance of "limited term slavery," the condition of being a slave or a free person is not an example of 2 extremes. Having a bunch of white people own a bunch of black people as slavery is extremely bad and evil. Not having slavery is good, it's basically norm. The other extreme would be to free all the black slaves, and give them a white person as a slave each. Clearly and evil extreme as well.

phaemon 13y ago
I see, so you admit that your argument that authors required copyright to make money was nonsense? Now it's just something they should have according to you? And since your first argument failed, you're now trying to attack me. Typical. I'm a bad example. The company I'm currently working with uses all OSS code and it is already released. I don't have the authors permission to make it public domain, I'm afraid. I'm restricted by copyright... All my personal work is indeed released without copyright restrictions, though I'd be tempted to use a non-commercial clause just because it's an un-even playing field: I don't get to ignore other people's copyright just because I don't use it on my work. In short, your argument is basically "if you don't like slavery, just release all your slaves". I'm restricted by copyright. So are you. Why should I accept that condition just so some lazy sod can make money more easily?
- x0054 13y ago
  1. No, I still think that copyright law is absolutely necessary in order for some types of authors to be able to make money and sustain them selves through the sale of their works. Specifically film makers and book authors, because that's what I am familiar with most. 2. I am not attacking you personally. I am challenging you to practice what you preach. You may use exclusively OSS code in your business, but the glue code that runs the OSS bits, the business model, your list of suppliers, etc. All of that is IP, release that. I don't actually expect you to do that, you know perfectly well that I think that would be unfair. I am simply trying to make you see how exposed people like book authors are. Their entire business is on display, for everyone to see. Their book is the entirety of their work, and unlike you, without copyright, they would have no protection what so ever. Even without copyright, you would always have a choice whether to make your work public, they would not. 3. Stop comparing Copyright Law to Slavery. It's insulting to the memory of the people who actually were slaves to compare ownership right in specific expression with ownership rights in other human beings.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    EDIT: Never mind. I don't see any point in this conversation. Have a good weekend.