On 05/09/10 21:06, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Martin P. Hellwig
<martin.hell...@dcuktec.org <mailto:martin.hell...@dcuktec.org>> wrote:
On 05/09/10 18:24, Stephen Hansen wrote:
<cut>
Wait, what? Why shouldn't I profit repeatedly from the "same
work already done"? *I* created, its *mine*. I put blood,
sweat and tears into it and perhaps huge amounts of resources,
risking financial security and sanity, and you're arguing I
shouldn't have the right to sell it after its done?
Of course, but what do you do if you find out that your potential
customer already has your software without paying you?
Nothing. There's really very little benefit to me to go after
"potential customers". There will always be warez trading and cracked
versions of any product out there that someone can pirate. So what?
The vast majority of the people downloading that aren't actually
*potential customers*. They'd never have bought the products to begin
with.
Now, if I find out some other company happens to be selling my
software, them I'd sue into oblivion and make a killing -- copyright
lets me do that.
Assuming that you have enough financial resources and that company is
within the same jurisdiction, granted otherwise it is still possible but
often seen unfeasible.
Exactly how do you imagine I'm going to make money off of it?
How the existing system works is that I sell... multiple
copies of it. Maybe hundreds or thousands before that
investment is recouped. At that point, do I no longer get to
sell multiple copies? Or do I have to find someone to
retroactively pay me some kind of salary? What does "pay for
work" even mean?
As a simple developer I do not think my craft is more special than
any other craft like carpentry, masonry, plumbing, electrician etc.
And as I see how other crafts get paid I think is reasonable for
my craft too, I am either employed and paid by the hour or take
more risks and do projects, commissions, etc. etc.
Of course if I would be in the construction business and I build a
house I can either sell it or let it, but then I do take the risk
that the occupant uses my work beyond what I expected and
eventually end up with a huge repair costs.
I am sure you can imagine the rest of my comparison arguments
between construction and software development.
You're comparing apples to rabbits. There's nothing even vaguely alike
between the two no matter how much you are trying to compare them:
carpentry, masonry, plumbing, all of that deal with *physical* items,
that by their very nature create singular, specific, tangible items
and/or services.
If I create a software product on commission for some private company,
that's almost-kind of like what happens for other "crafts", wherein
someone pays me some amount of money for some amount of work to
produce a finished product. But how exactly do you imagine I would
make money if I have some idea for some great new program and I write
it on my own?
The only way is to... sell multiple copies. Or try to find someone to
give me one big lump sum for the privilege of releasing it to the
universe.
I have seen a couple of times when one organization/user has not the
financial resources to commission or further develop an (software) idea
that they through trade or sector organization combine their resources
to get there, this happen quite often in education institutes for the
development for administration programs. Personally I think that where
there is a will there is a way.
Software is intangible, irregardless of the fact that it might show up
on a physical medium. You can't compare work of the mind with work of
physical crafts-- one is not more worthy of money then the other, but
they are *different*.
Like poetry, music and the such, which indeed share much of the same
problems as software. Still they flourished even before rule
enforcement. I am sure that Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, didn't have
too much problems in that regard.
What's wrong with software copyrights? Don't lump intellectual
property issues together, they're not comparable. Copyrights have
nothing at all to do with patents which have nothing at all to do
with trademarks. Each is a very different set of law.
Very true and in my opinion they all share the same trait,
although they are once made to make sure the original author gets
credit and profit for his/her work they are primarily used now to
profit beyond reasonableness and actually encumber future
development and good use, IMHO they actually hinder the
intellectual development of the human race.
You say 'very true' but then you lump them all together again. "They"
are not at all for the same thing.
I said they share a same trait, I did not say they where the same thing
and above that I said it was IMHO, which should indicate that I am aware
that opinions differ on that.
Copyrights are intended, indeed, to make sure the original author gets
credit and profit for his creative work. They tend to last a rather
long time these days.
Patents are intended to allow a relatively short-term monopoly on some
new invention, so that the vast costs of R&D can be justified, but
also so that the -result- of that R&D will be published to the public
and after that monopoly is over, allow everyone to benefit. They are
an encumbrance, yes, but a temporary one: and after that encumbrance
is over, the inventor losers all control over the invented.
Unfortunately, patents are woefully broken due to business methods and
software being allowed to be 'patented', which is just silly on both
cases.
Trademarks are intended to protect the *consumers*, by disallowing
companies from marketing in a confusing way such that what they are
selling may be mistaken for what a reputable third-party is selling. A
company can trademark its "brand", and by doing so customers can know
that brand and IF they trust it, rely on it when they see it.
Trademarks actually, IMHO, work quite well -- companies actually have
to enforce them and be pro-active about them, unlike with patents,
where one can sit around and wait for another to firmly establish
themselves with technology based on your patent, then jump in and sue.
I fail to see how there's really anything "encumbering" about trademarks.
Uh I missed the bit about me being against trademarks, I actually agree
that this is a good thing, because this prevents fraud.
Sure, there's some nutty corner cases in copyrights, which
need to be addressed-- including things like fair use and DRM.
But on the whole, copyrights aren't really all that broken.
Its nothing like the situation with software patents, which
are just sort of crazy.
Okay so what do you actually do if you find out that in another
country, which do not share the same legislation (about the other
80% of the population) brakes your copyright or does not uphold
the patent restrictions?
If your big like Microsoft you might try to convince that
particular government that their citizens should pay you,
otherwise good luck (even for Microsoft as they seem to fail more
often than succeed in that notion).
Umm.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Berne_Convention_signatories.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/WIPO.png
And a couple others, including the Pair Convention of something or other.
Intellectual property law is pretty globally standard these days.
That's not to say that in some places its not largely ignored in
certain sectors, but see first response above.
They are broken because by definition restrictions need
enforcement to uphold them, if there is no enforcement it will not
work. Perhaps a better solution would be to find a way that does
not need any enforcement (or limited amount of it), say like the
economy worked prior to patents and copyrights minus kings and
tyrants.
... copyright dates back to the 1700's.
In Europe (UK) and US.
And, there are ways to enforce the "restrictions"-- which are not
restrictions, but instead enforcement of rights that I, as the one who
made this creative work, hold. Its a civil action. (Though certain
types and kinds of infringement may in some jurisdictions be a
criminal offense)
You can believe in the Free Software movement (I'm not saying
you do, this 'you' is impersonal and metaphorical)-- and if
you do, good for you. You can believe in "morality" with
regards to "freedom" and the "essential rights" of the users.
I find it all nonsensical. But good for you if you believe in
it. But the Free Software movement exists *because* of
copyrights. Copyright Law is what makes the GPL even possible.
<cut>
I don't believe in a system which is based on enforcing rules and
where breaking of this rule at most results in a hypothetical loss
of income. Some enforced rules are of course necessary, like not
going on a pillage/killing/raping spree (except of course if this
is your job but then your still governed by the rules of Geneva --
yeah I know bold military statement, but I have been there too,
the military that is). I rather like to find a way where minimal
rule enforcing is necessary to make a living.
I find i can make a living quite well with basically zero "rule
enforcing", because of copyrights. I really don't need to enforce that
every kid out there might get an illegal copy of a program I wrote.
They aren't my customers. However, because I have copyright, I can be
sure that no other companies are going to start completing with me
based on my own work. (That I made this argument in a thread about
open source licensing, and the irony therein, does not escape me)
It makes perfect sense to me, just as you said open source license is
just another form of copyright.
Cuz then I'll sue their ass off.
But its never happened. And I don't expect it to happen. Because
copyright is an international, pretty clearly standardized set of law.
Stating the fact that copyright is a clear international standard, only
on a limited scale contributes to the argument that it is an effective
process. Supporting this argument that is has never happened to you nor
that you expect it to happen only demonstrates that your software is
just not popular enough to suffer infringement, because _all_ other
popular software does (according to virtual every lobby group). Actually
you could go so far and define the popularity of software by the amount
of copyright infringements.
But I fail to see what's fundamentally wrong with that system.
I hope I have further explained my point of view and hope that you
agree with me at least from my perspective, I do understand though
that your point of view is perfectly valid and reasonable. It is
just that I am a sucker for seeking alternative ways to improve
systems even if they only show small amounts of defects. So you
could argue that I have my sight set for an Utopia while you
rather remain in the reality, if you can find yourself with this
than at least we can agree on that :-)
Had you stuck to wanting to make patents make sense, I would have
agreed with you about half the way-- but I actually, mostly, sorta
think copyrights are fine. Even with idiocies like DRM. I think the
market has to decide to turn away from DRM. (I'm looking at you
Ubisoft: you've lost over $100 already from me!)
--S
Well if may sum it up (minus trademarks as we both agree on the need for
it):
Your opinion is that copyrights, within reason, work on a global scale.
Patents are necessary and also work on a global scale.
I have no doubt that copyrights and patents exist.
I have no doubt that globally governments indicate that they are
enforcing it.
However I do doubt that they work, I think the enforcing is highly
ineffective.
If at average at least 1 in 5 software products use is an 'illegal'
version
(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate)
then by no way you can say if is effectively enforced.
Take it from another perspective, everybody who uses illegal software in
full awareness (according to those terms) is by that definition a
criminal, equal to somebody stealing a car radio.
This would make most of the people out there criminals, from primary
school goers to senior citizens.
And to be true this is what bothers me the most, it criminalizes people
who otherwise would never be attributed to malice. I took a firm stand
against copyrights and patents in this thread, but I am not that
fanatic, in reality I prefer open-source, but I do buy software, like
recently Spore.
I don't buy my Microsoft software because I can download and use them
for free (I have an MSDN & Technet subscription).
However for myself I do not contribute to copyrights, but because the
rest of the world does I need to stick at least the MIT/BSD license on it.
Patents, well I suppose big corporation that have huge investment need
to see a ROI, I mean Amazon would have been in a financial crisis if
they didn't patented their innovating the single-click shopping.
Small time and accidental inventors don't have the financial means
anyway to afford a global patent these days.
--
mph
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
