From: Shlomi Fish (shlomif_at_nonexisting.hamakor.org.il)
Date: Tue 24 May 2005 - 20:02:26 IDT
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 16:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:46:27PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Check:
> >
> > http://www.advogato.org/article/841.html
>
> This is a very well written article, which attempts to justify software
> and other intelectual property using the following skewed arguments:
>
Do you mean it tries to justify software copyright infringement? And I
specificlaly mentioned that intellectual property was an incorrect term
because it isn't property and because copyrights, patents and trademarks are
completely different things that serve different purposes.
> 1. It isn't copy protected, so it's okay to steal.
>
Infringing on one's copyright is not stealing, because copyrighted bitbuckets
are not property. Furthermore, making a copy of a song, video, picture, etc.
is not infringing on one's copyright. I did not cover copy protection hacks
on this article, and could not care less whether they were present or not.
> I hope you lock your doors when you leave home, after all this is
> justification to walk into your home and walk out with the TV, computer,
> etc.
I always lock my doors. Nevertheless, I don't approve of people _breaking and
entering_ and then _stealing_ _physical_, _tangible_ _property_. But from
when was a bitbucket that is publicly available property?
>
> 2. It isn't really being stolen as it has no physical existance.
>
> That's the whole idea of copyright. People who create things that are
> not tangible get compensated for their efforts. Copyrights did not exist
> until the late 19th century. Samuel Clemmens (aka Mark Twain) was one
> of the leaders of the movement for them.
>
> This created a group of people who lived off of their creations, instead
> of a rich patron or the sweat of physical labor. Without copyrights and
> patents, there would be very little creation.
I seriously doubt that without copyrights there would be very little creation.
Just look at all the wonderful content you can find on the Internet that is
available to the public. Artists create because they _need_ to create. I am
an artist and have written some stories:
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/
As well as essays, some computer graphics, a lot of free software, and
articles and presentations.
Now, when I get a really great idea for a story, I am so obsessed with it that
I have to key it in the computer. Then I wish as many people in the world to
read it and let me know what they think about it. Making money off the story
has nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure that's the case for other sorts of
media.
Copyrights used to be important to make sure creation was continued because at
the time, media did not have an electronic representation and facilitated
copying. You could not have duplicated a book in the same ease as today's cp
or wget commands. Thus, writers who wanted to publish their books needed some
sort of legal protection to make sure they can make a living out of selling
these books. This is akin to the Hebrew term of "Zkhuyuth Yotsrim" or
"Originator rights".
>
> 3. My father pays for his music, so therefore I can steal mine.
>
> How does paying one artist justify stealing from another? It would be like
> paying for milk and the expecting to eat meat for free.
>
First of all, will you stop with this stealing thing? The only time I could
have stole data is if I intruded to someone's computer and got some piece of
data which was private or confidential. This is real stealing. However,
ripping a song off a CD (that is publicly sold in shops), and then putting it
online and downloading it, is by no means stealing. It is simply "copying".
Whether it is OK or not is argumentative.
As for your original argument, my point was that as a whole, our family has
been a good consumer of music, even after we got a fast Internet connection.
For the record, I also travelled the other day to a store and bought 3
original CDs of bands I liked. I ripped them into oggs and now enjoy
listening to them. I still have many songs by many artists which I downloaded
without paying for, but:
1. Give me time. I'll probably buy more CDs or original copies of these songs
in time.
2. I did not do anything wrong. Copying and re-distribution of copyrighted
work is fully legitimate according to the First Sale Principle of copyright
law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#The_first-sale_doctrine
> 4. I don't make my living creating, so therefore I can steal from someone
> who does?
>
> (What do you do?, How do you support yourself?).
>
I actually do make my living creating. I am a programmer, writer and essayists
by trade and do exactly that. On my homepage - http://www.shlomifish.org/ you
can find countless things I've created and made available to the public.
There's more that were posted elsewhere.
> > Is it part of Hamakor's agenda to protect the people's right to share
> > media files?
>
> No, it is not. The only right that Hamkor should defend is the right to
> P2P sharing of material that is legal to share.
Well, sharing copyrighted mp3's and videos is legal. (at least legal according
to absolute ethics - the law of the land may deviate from it). In any case,
if it's not under Hamakor's agenda to protect such activities, I'm looking
for an organization which does.
>
> > If not, whom should I contact about further action? The Israeli
> > Society for Human and Civil rights?
>
> I don't know, if you are relegious I suggest you contact a rabbi.
I'm not.
> If not,
> try a good intelectual property lawyer.
I'm trying to organize a public well-funded court case, that will positively
deface the media industry and prevent them from either violating the privacy
of the surfers, or suing them for damages. I'm not looking for protecting
myself in particular, just for protecting one or more of the first such cases
that are brought to court.
> And while you are at it read
> "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
>
I have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead". They are very good books.
I also read "The Neo-Tech Cosmic Power" (Pincer #1) which was my initial
introdcution to Objectivism. I am very much a pro-Capitalistic,
pro-Laissez-Faire Objectivist. I uphold freedom both invidiual and economic.
Hopefully without spoiling too much, Copyrights are not mentioned anywhere on
Atlas Shrugged. It strictly talks about productive industries and invidiuals
that supply real tangible services. Money is sometimes charged for
performances, but never for the work itself. There is some thing about a
trade secret, but that's a completely different issue.
Ayn Rand later voiced her opinion that Copyrights were necessary in a free
economy. However, she died before the personal computer revolution and the
Internet revolution (and the FOSS revolution) really took off.
It is my opinion that media _must be_ shareable. Restricting the
re-distribution of the media is not something a copyright holder can be
allowed to do[1].
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
[1] Unless possibly for software, but that is also a tool rather than a final
product, that is used for enjoyment or for learning. And it is also more time
consuming and error prone to create than other forms of media, so may justify
special treatment. An audio file, a video, a picture, etc. can still be
perceptible and often even enjoyable even without being "perfect". However,
in a software, one one-liner bug can mean a world of difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_iglu.org.il
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
Tcl is LISP on drugs. Using strings instead of S-expressions for closures
is Evil with one of those gigantic E's you can find at the beginning of
paragraphs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 08 Oct 2005 - 15:41:58 IST