www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] - does IP exist?

reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.

Lets start from the beginning: we live in a democracy which is a
compromise between the right of the individual and the rights of the
community he belongs to. One of the rights of the community is the right
to public access to any idea/artistic creation any individual has published.
The idea behind both laws, patent law and copyright law, is very similar
even though they serve two distinct purposes: they give an exclusive
time-span to the creator after coming forward with the creation on the
expense of that right of the public in order to make it worthwhile for
individuals in the community to come up with new ideas and to encourage
new ideas and new creations.
to answer the specific issues raised:

Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
business model for such a situation?"

there are tons of possibilities: I could sell support and consulting
services (if it works for Red Hat..) for example. all depends on the
size and complexity of the product. say I developed an IDE ( I like
IDEs..) I can also make my living by developing custom plugins ordered
by customers. What's important to realize is that Software is a service
not a product. and each service needs to have its own business model (so
the business model appropriate for say an IDE won't suit an online game).
I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code and
get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's just
wishful thinking.

next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.

To address Mike's post:
Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
model is wrong.
When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
(mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.

I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
gist of it.
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
A reply for Jesse:

you've said:
<qoute>
The owner also has the right to limit the medium to which his product
can run. While I think these things, DRM, are stupid it is still their
right, and thus I decided not to buy it. Unfortunately that is how the
free market work. It is not a matter of, If I want the product I can
access it by any means necessary, but I can either live with the choice
of the author or boycott it. And boycotting fails because of the number
of people that go with option 1.
</qoute>

In fact, DRM is illegal. copyright law and patent law both give the
author a defined time span of exclusivity. after that, the information
becomes public domain. DRM is not limited by that time span and
therefore violates the law. (if i buy a DRMed file and the allotted time
span have passed than the information legally is Public domain and I
should be able to do with it as I see fit. DRM violates this right.

you also asked:
<quote>
Question, a lot of your argument rides on the one that pirated either
getting others to buy the product or purchasing other products from the
creator. What if none of that happens and the creator makes no money on
said pirate, is it still not stealing?
</quote>

yes, this is not stealing. stealing is not defined by money. If I stole
your car and left you the exact amount it would cost, did I just buy
your car or steal it?
stealing is taking (not copying) from you something that is yours
without permission as bobef said in his post.
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:


 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


If a person didn't pay, he is no customer.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
I'm just gonna post a small comment with my opinion on this issue.

Pirating music,movies,games,etc., is not the same as stealing physical 
things. Like Robert mentioned before, in most cases of pirated stuff, if 
you could not pirate it, it wouldn't mean you would be buying the stuff, 
so you are not really stealing *money* from the person/company that made 
the stuff.
That said, that doesn't change in any way the fact that you had no right 
to do that (piracy). Just because something is infinitely copyable 
doesn't mean it's ok for you to make your own copy without regards to 
the authors wishes of payment or any other thing.
I've pirated most of my stuff (music,movies,games) for most of my life 
since I had very little extra money to buy these things, but now that 
I've finished my degree and become employed, I'm buying a lot more 
stuff, especially those that are worth it.

(BTW, I recommend emusic.com for music purchases, it's nice)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 
 I'm just gonna post a small comment with my opinion on this issue.
 
 Pirating music,movies,games,etc., is not the same as stealing physical 
 things. Like Robert mentioned before, in most cases of pirated stuff, if 
 you could not pirate it, it wouldn't mean you would be buying the stuff, 
 so you are not really stealing *money* from the person/company that made 
 the stuff.


Actually, I mentioned not all the users who pirate it would get it 
legit, but some would. For example, consider a $100 product. If 1/5th 
the people who pirate it would have bought it if tehy could not have 
downloaded it, you can say that, on average, they're "stealing" $20 from 
the company.

OT: I agree eMusic is cool for high-quality & no DRM, but has their 
selection improved? I'm on ZunePass which has been fulfilling most of my 
music needs, but $15 a month will be too much when I go back to school.
Aug 15 2008
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 
 OT: I agree eMusic is cool for high-quality & no DRM, but has their 
 selection improved? I'm on ZunePass which has been fulfilling most of my 
 music needs, but $15 a month will be too much when I go back to school.


I can't say if eMusic has improved, I've subscribed to it fairly 
recently, dunno much how it was before 2008 for example. So far I've 
found available most of the stuff I've looked for (70% rough estimate).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
I'll make this one post with my opinion, respond if you wish, I won't 
answer.  But nobody's really brought this point up.

Violating copyright law is illegal.  Whether you think you are in the right 
or not, it doesn't matter.  I happen to think that the copyright law is 
pretty fair, except for the DMCA, and the ability to hold a copyright pretty 
much indefinitely.  The whole point of copyright law is to allow people to 
share media without losing your ability to make money from it.  Not ideas, 
but the actual media, whether it be written, audio, video, etc.  The point 
is that it costs a lot of money to make this media, and if there is not some 
protection from copying, people will not want to share it or make it, and 
that has a chilling effect on society.

Copying music, movies, software, etc. for the purposes of Fair Use is 
perfectly legal.  Fair use means, if I have a CD, and I want to make an MP3 
of it, I can copy it so long as I do not give it to someone else so that 
both of us have the same thing.  I would consider copying a piece of 
software to multiple computers in my own household Fair Use, or burning a CD 
for my wife Fair Use.  But I would not consider copying a piece of software 
to all my friends' houses Fair Use.

The problem with all your ranting about how software should be free is, it 
doesn't really matter.  If they fine you $10k, then will it matter to you? 
If the throw you in jail, then will it matter to you?  No matter whether you 
think its right or not, it doesn't matter.  The law is what matters, and for 
better or worse, you have to obey it, or you face criminal penalties.  Just 
ask the poor shmucks who all got sued by the music industry if they care 
anymore whether downloading music illegally is right or not.  They might 
tell you they still think it's ok, but I'm pretty sure they ain't doing it 
again :)

I can't say the same for DMCA, because I think it violates free speech.  I 
think eventually, this law will be overturned if someone pushes it hard 
enough.

If I can come to your house and take your car, does it mean it's ok?  It's 
possible to do, so it should be OK, right?  What you have to understand is 
just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's ok.

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
parent reply bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 I'll make this one post with my opinion, respond if you wish, I won't 
 answer.  But nobody's really brought this point up.
 
 Violating copyright law is illegal.  Whether you think you are in the right 
 or not, it doesn't matter.  I happen to think that the copyright law is 
 pretty fair, except for the DMCA, and the ability to hold a copyright pretty 
 much indefinitely.  The whole point of copyright law is to allow people to 
 share media without losing your ability to make money from it.  Not ideas, 
 but the actual media, whether it be written, audio, video, etc.  The point 
 is that it costs a lot of money to make this media, and if there is not some 
 protection from copying, people will not want to share it or make it, and 
 that has a chilling effect on society.
 


What if law in my country is different from the law in your country? I doubt
some countries even have copyright laws. What if tomorrow some revolution
creates a new country with open minded people and they say in their country
everyone should do what is called pirating in other countries? Then which law
is the right one? Laws are not defaults. They are mental constructs. As long as
the majority is fooled that the law is something good it works.


 
 I can't say the same for DMCA, because I think it violates free speech.  I 
 think eventually, this law will be overturned if someone pushes it hard 
 enough.
 


I don't know what DMCA is but it does violates free speech in the same way that
copyright laws violates some other free thing (i.e. the right to copy what is
copyable). This proves my point (including that I don't know what DMCA is
because there is no such thing where I live). Maybe laws are necessary to some
degree (once again because most people are dishonest or call it as you wish),
but such laws as copyright are purely artificial. Big corporations will push
whatever laws they need to force you too pay. Actually you said it in your
post. These laws are for the authors to make money, not for freedom.

Bottom line: laws are not arguments in a logical dispute. (but you may have
point if you live in say US and someone sues you you are screwed. parents need
to teach their children how to be more careful when downloading music lol)

Btw it is interesting how the opinion of many people living in US/Canada and
maybe some western Europe differs from the rest of the world :) Too bad this is
probably going to change :)

Here is something to think about. Say I pay you for a copy of your software
(music etc). What you give me is it the same piece of work that you produced or
is it a different one (or both or neither :). If it is the same one and you
give it to me you don't have it any more. This is not the case. If it is a
different one why should I pay you if you are not giving me your work? Can't be
the same and different in the same time. And if it is neither same nor
different why should I pay anyway?

Bottom line 2: as Yigal Chripun said we need to pay for the service not for
physical thing because this is not physical thing.

Instead of this pointless discussions why don't we discuss a better business
model that could benefit us as developers? Any ideas? :)
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:32:50 -0400, bobef wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 

 I'll make this one post with my opinion, respond if you wish, I won't
 answer.  But nobody's really brought this point up.
 
 Violating copyright law is illegal.  Whether you think you are in the
 right or not, it doesn't matter.  I happen to think that the copyright
 law is pretty fair, except for the DMCA, and the ability to hold a
 copyright pretty much indefinitely.  The whole point of copyright law
 is to allow people to share media without losing your ability to make
 money from it.  Not ideas, but the actual media, whether it be written,
 audio, video, etc.  The point is that it costs a lot of money to make
 this media, and if there is not some protection from copying, people
 will not want to share it or make it, and that has a chilling effect on
 society.
 
 


 What if law in my country is different from the law in your country? I
 doubt some countries even have copyright laws. What if tomorrow some
 revolution creates a new country with open minded people and they say in
 their country everyone should do what is called pirating in other
 countries? Then which law is the right one? Laws are not defaults. They
 are mental constructs. As long as the majority is fooled that the law is
 something good it works.
 
 

 I can't say the same for DMCA, because I think it violates free speech.
  I think eventually, this law will be overturned if someone pushes it
 hard enough.
 
 


 I don't know what DMCA is but it does violates free speech in the same
 way that copyright laws violates some other free thing (i.e. the right
 to copy what is copyable). This proves my point (including that I don't
 know what DMCA is because there is no such thing where I live). Maybe
 laws are necessary to some degree (once again because most people are
 dishonest or call it as you wish), but such laws as copyright are purely
 artificial. Big corporations will push whatever laws they need to force
 you too pay. Actually you said it in your post. These laws are for the
 authors to make money, not for freedom.
 
 Bottom line: laws are not arguments in a logical dispute. (but you may
 have point if you live in say US and someone sues you you are screwed.
 parents need to teach their children how to be more careful when
 downloading music lol)
 
 Btw it is interesting how the opinion of many people living in US/Canada
 and maybe some western Europe differs from the rest of the world :) Too
 bad this is probably going to change :)
 
 Here is something to think about. Say I pay you for a copy of your
 software (music etc). What you give me is it the same piece of work that
 you produced or is it a different one (or both or neither :). If it is
 the same one and you give it to me you don't have it any more. This is
 not the case. If it is a different one why should I pay you if you are
 not giving me your work? Can't be the same and different in the same
 time. And if it is neither same nor different why should I pay anyway?
 
 Bottom line 2: as Yigal Chripun said we need to pay for the service not
 for physical thing because this is not physical thing.
 
 Instead of this pointless discussions why don't we discuss a better
 business model that could benefit us as developers? Any ideas? :)


If you are in a different country, then fine. You are ruled by your 
government and I am ruled by mine.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent Jussi Jumppanen <jussij zeusedit.com> writes:
bobef Wrote:


 Big corporations will push whatever laws they need 
 to force you too pay. Actually you said it in your 
 post. These laws are for the authors to make money, 
 not for freedom.


The copyright law doesn't force anyone to do anything, 
but rather it asks people not take what does not belong 
to them.


 Bottom line 2: as Yigal Chripun said we need to pay 
 for the service not for physical thing because this 
 is not physical thing.


I doubt very much that someone who is not prepared to 
pay $40-00 for software if going to then pay $40-00 per 
hour (i.e. a cost of $40.00+) for some sort of service. 


 Instead of this pointless discussions why don't 
 we discuss a better business model that could 
 benefit us as developers?


These better business models are already starting 
to appear. They include:

  1) Reducing the developers wages to counter the lost 
        sales revenue

  2) Reducing the number of developers to counter the 
        lost sales revenue

  3) Offshoring the entire business to greatly reduce 
        the costs of development

Companies have also started to add in greater levels of 
protection into their software through the use of:

  1) Encryption and software activation

  2) Moving critical parts of the software from the client 
      to the server and selling access to the server.

But these types of changes require very high levels of 
infrastructure and substantial ongoing running cost, so 
only the bigger software companies will be in a position 
to implement them.

Companies that fail to move this way will just end up 
loosing money on their software and will eventually
go out of business. 

Strangely enough the reduced competition will probably
make life even better for the bigger software companies 
that do survive.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
If the concept of what we now call "IP" had never been established and no one
had ever
been compensated in exchange for the time and effort that they expended in
creating
something (infinitely copiable or not) then I frankly believe that humans as we
call
ourselves today would not have even evolved.

Take the case of cave man Zug...

Zug has an idea (ideas are infinitely copiable) for a better spear tip. In
order to make
it he needs to collect enough materials to make it and spend time turning his
idea into
a physical object (perhaps even several protottypes). This takes time, time
that he would
normally spend hunting in order to feed his family. Zug is convinced his idea
is worth
the short term hardship so he stays up late knapping flints etc. Of couse Zug is
worried that his wife and kids (ZJ and Zugette) might go hungry if he is wrong,
but if he
is right he will be a better hunter and be able to spend more time with them.

The new spear tip is a success and everyone in the village wants one so Zug
makes a new
one for himself and trades the old one for a days worth of food, only Zug's new
spear tip
is just a little better than the first. Others can make a poor copy of the
original, but
only Zug who had the original idea can improve upon it, so Zug becomes the
village's
spear tip making guy, trading spear tips for food and spending his day colecting
materials and fabricating instead of hunting.

Zug now has the time to explain to his son Zug Jnr how to make the new spear
tip and
why it is better that the old one and how it can be further developed, the
first copy
of the idea.

If no one respected Zug's IP he would not have had the oportunity to further
develop
his idea into a product, even going to the effort of making the spear would
have put
his family in danger. Society as we know it today only exists because our
productivity exceeds our requirements which gives people enough time to be
creative.
Some creativity further boosts our productivity, some is purely artistic and
only
benefits indirectly by effecting our sence of well being. It is giving ideas a
tradeable value just the same as physical objects that allows this all to
develop.
To say that IP is only an artifact of law is in my opinion nieve.

My apologies for the cave man metaphore...

A...
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g83na1$8jb$1 digitalmars.com...

 Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


 Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
 in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
 business model for such a situation?"


Why do they have a right to use my work but I dont have a right to say how 
its used, or a right to be rewarded for my work.

Why do their rights trump mine?



 I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code and
 get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's just
 wishful thinking.


In pramatic terms yes, you have to accept that people will steal / pirate 
your work. So you need a business model that will suceed in spite of that.

But it doesnt stop piracy being what it is. An illegal violation of the 
authors rights.



 next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
 etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
 all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
 and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
 recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
 subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
 alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
 those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
 options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.


Yes better services / busniness models will help reduce piracy. But that 
isnt the main reason for it, the main reason, as it has always been, and 
always will be, is because people will avoid paying for somthing if they 
dont have to. And moreso if they can mentaly reconstruct the act as a 
victimless crime.

It's the same reason people are more likely to pocket the change if the are 
overchanged in WalMart than if they were overchanged in small local store 
ran by a guy they know.

It's the same with music / film / software piracy. Most people see it as a 
victimless crime, they wouldnt pay for most of the stuff they have pirated 
anyway so what difference does it make?

Well there's still some percentage of what they pirate that they probably 
would have paid for. So it does still hurt developers / producers.

I know quite a few developers in the pro audio industry who have seen their 
sales fall through the floor as soon as their software turns up on bit 
torrent / rapidshare ect. And I really mean dropped by 80%. It's why so many 
pro audio companies are adopting hardware dongles.

I offer an open challenge to any of freeloaders to put a possitive communist 
spin on that.



 To address Mike's post:
 Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
 product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
 model is wrong.


You can have a business model that treats it more or less as one or the 
other but that doesnt actualy make it fundamentaly one or the other. So it's 
a completely irelevant disnction to make imo.

Sure say "a service based business model" is more pragmatic.

But its wrong, and of little illumination to say software is a service, and 
not a product. Actualy if you want to be pedantic you would say a product is 
a "product of labour", a service is a "supply of labour", so tehcincaly 
software is more the former than the later.

And not to mention that vast amounts of companies still survive and prosper 
with a product based business model.




 When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
 oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
 breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
 (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
 was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
 to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
 money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
 not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
 much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.

 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


You could use the same analogy to reason away protection rackets, or drug 
running, or most illegal enterprise. It's just a fact of life, you cant 
change it, so get on with it.

Which to some extent is true, but it doesnt mean we should stop calling 
those things for what we are.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Jb wrote:

 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:g83na1$8jb$1 digitalmars.com...

 Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


 Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
 in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
 business model for such a situation?"


 
 Why do they have a right to use my work but I dont have a right to say how 
 its used, or a right to be rewarded for my work.
 
 Why do their rights trump mine?
 
 

 I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code and
 get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's just
 wishful thinking.


 
 In pramatic terms yes, you have to accept that people will steal / pirate 
 your work. So you need a business model that will suceed in spite of that.
 
 But it doesnt stop piracy being what it is. An illegal violation of the 
 authors rights.
 


Sure, I agree with that. And as long as you call it "piracy", and "copyright
violation", I'm on your side.

I really only start getting pissed off when you try to call it "stealing" and
claim that every single infringement equals a lost sale.


 

 next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
 etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
 all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
 and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
 recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
 subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
 alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
 those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
 options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.


 
 Yes better services / busniness models will help reduce piracy. But that 
 isnt the main reason for it, the main reason, as it has always been, and 
 always will be, is because people will avoid paying for somthing if they 
 dont have to. And moreso if they can mentaly reconstruct the act as a 
 victimless crime.
 
 It's the same reason people are more likely to pocket the change if the are 
 overchanged in WalMart than if they were overchanged in small local store 
 ran by a guy they know.
 
 It's the same with music / film / software piracy. Most people see it as a 
 victimless crime, they wouldnt pay for most of the stuff they have pirated 
 anyway so what difference does it make?
 


I wouldn't pay for the stuff I pirate. I pirate english movies because I don't
like watching German movies. Take Dark Knight. I want to watch it. But I don't
want to watch it enough to see the German version, or enough to go and import a
DVD. If there were no P2P networks, I would _never_ watch it.

So the fact that I'm probably going to pirate it in half a year or so does
_not_ equate to a lost sale.

FWIW, I pay for many of the games I play. And I have a legitimate reason to
download them first - Linux :) There's a high chance that the game won't work
anyway.


 Well there's still some percentage of what they pirate that they probably 
 would have paid for. So it does still hurt developers / producers.
 


But less than is commonly claimed.


 I know quite a few developers in the pro audio industry who have seen their 
 sales fall through the floor as soon as their software turns up on bit 
 torrent / rapidshare ect. And I really mean dropped by 80%. It's why so many 
 pro audio companies are adopting hardware dongles.
 
 I offer an open challenge to any of freeloaders to put a possitive communist 
 spin on that.
 


I'd like to see the numbers on that.

Specifically, number of IPs that downloaded the software, as compared to
precise sales figures.

It sounds like somebody saw their sales going down, and went out to find a
reason.


 

 To address Mike's post:
 Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
 product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
 model is wrong.


 
 You can have a business model that treats it more or less as one or the 
 other but that doesnt actualy make it fundamentaly one or the other. So it's 
 a completely irelevant disnction to make imo.
 
 Sure say "a service based business model" is more pragmatic.
 
 But its wrong, and of little illumination to say software is a service, and 
 not a product. Actualy if you want to be pedantic you would say a product is 
 a "product of labour", a service is a "supply of labour", so tehcincaly 
 software is more the former than the later.
 
 And not to mention that vast amounts of companies still survive and prosper 
 with a product based business model.
 


I agree with you here. Software is a product if only by virtue of people being
ready to buy into the concept that it is. :)

But that doesn't change the fact that "software is a product" is an artificial
concept, a marketplace model being adapted to sell something it was not
intended to sell.

Just saying.


 
 

 When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
 oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
 breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
 (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
 was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
 to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
 money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
 not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
 much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.

 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


 
 You could use the same analogy to reason away protection rackets, or drug 
 running, or most illegal enterprise. It's just a fact of life, you cant 
 change it, so get on with it.
 
 Which to some extent is true, but it doesnt mean we should stop calling 
 those things for what we are.
 


We agree on this. :)

However, mainly due to the massive scale of casual copyright violation today,
it may be that the era of "software as a product" is quite simply coming to an
end.

After that point, it would be a shame if people were still put into lifelong
debt over laws that have lost all relevance.

Well, we'll see where things lead.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g86h0t$2dur$1 digitalmars.com...


 I wouldn't pay for the stuff I pirate. I pirate english movies because I 
 don't
 like watching German movies. Take Dark Knight. I want to watch it. But I
 don't want to watch it enough to see the German version, or enough to go
 and import a DVD. If there were no P2P networks, I would _never_ watch it.

 So the fact that I'm probably going to pirate it in half a year or so does
  _not_ equate to a lost sale.


It may not result in a lost sale directly. But if you couldnt get the Dark 
Knight for free, or couldnt download Photoshop for free, you would probably 
be more inclined to pay for other things.

I mean sure most people who pirate Photoshop wouldn't pay the $200 (or 
whatever it is) to buy the legit version. But by pirating photoshop they are 
satisfying a need they have that would likely have to be satisfied by 
cheaper alternatives.

So Adobe may not have lost a sale but someone else has.



 FWIW, I pay for many of the games I play. And I have a legitimate reason 
 to
 download them first - Linux :) There's a high chance that the game won't 
 work
 anyway.


Well to be honest I do download pirate software / music. But if i use / 
listen to somthing I generaly pay for a legit version.



 Well there's still some percentage of what they pirate that they probably
 would have paid for. So it does still hurt developers / producers.


 But less than is commonly claimed.


I'm sure people on both sides exagerate the figures.



 I know quite a few developers in the pro audio industry who have seen 
 their
 sales fall through the floor as soon as their software turns up on bit
 torrent / rapidshare ect. And I really mean dropped by 80%. It's why so 
 many
 pro audio companies are adopting hardware dongles.

 I offer an open challenge to any of freeloaders to put a possitive 
 communist
 spin on that.


 I'd like to see the numbers on that.

 Specifically, number of IPs that downloaded the software, as compared
 to precise sales figures.

 It sounds like somebody saw their sales going down, and went out to find a 
 reason.


Well I dont have sales figures, but i've heard the same story from 3 
different developers. Ok 80% was the worst case scenario.

That said, it's got to be bad or why would so many pro audio developers, 
(and some of these are small developers, 1 or 2 employees), go to the 
trouble of using hardware dongles, which chop 20-30% off their profits? Not 
only do users have to buy the dongle themselves, developers have to licence 
the drm software, and the hassle of building it into their apps.

And on top off that they loose a fair percentage of existing customers 
because many people simply wont use dongled products.

I guess the point is that even if only 10% of pirate copies equate to a lost 
sale, or money not spent in the industry, that could very well be 50% of 
sales for *some* developers.

Whether this is just somthing that's particulary bad in the audio software 
industry I dont know, but of all my musician freinds I cant think of any who 
would pay for software when they can get it for free. I can remember getting 
"huh.. you piad for it??" quite a few times when telling them about some new 
plugin / app i bought.

They are happy to spend $4000 on a custom bass, or an electonic kit, or a 
sampler, but software.. well they dont need to so they dont.



 Aug 16 2008



 next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com>  writes:


"Jb" <jb nowhere.com> wrote in message news:g86rhg$2v5q$1 digitalmars.com...


 I mean sure most people who pirate Photoshop wouldn't pay the $200 (or 
 whatever it is) to buy the legit version. But by pirating photoshop they 
 are satisfying a need they have that would likely have to be satisfied by 
 cheaper alternatives.


You're a bit low on that figure.  CS3 starts at $650, and CS3 extended is 
$1000.

Then you have software like 3DS Max, which usually _starts_ at $3000, and 
Maya which is in the $7000 range.

To me, it's no real surprise that piracy of programs like these is so 
rampant.  How are hobbyists/small companies supposed to pay for software 
like this?  Yes, you can get student/educational editions of many of these 
products, but they've got a completely crippled license and they've still 
got hefty price tags, usually $400-700.

I would _gladly_ purchase some of this software if they offered varying 
levels of it along with commercial licenses.  $600 for a stripped-down 3DS 
Max?  Sure, if I'm really into that stuff, why not.  But with $3000 I can, 
oh I don't know, buy a car, or feed myself for a year. 



 Aug 16 2008



  parent  "Jb" <jb nowhere.com>  writes:


"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:g86vqe$4g5$1 digitalmars.com...

 To me, it's no real surprise that piracy of programs like these is so 
 rampant.  How are hobbyists/small companies supposed to pay for software 
 like this?  Yes, you can get student/educational editions of many of these 
 products, but they've got a completely crippled license and they've still 
 got hefty price tags, usually $400-700.


I dont see why hobbyists and small business have to have Photoshop and 3DS 
Max.



 I would _gladly_ purchase some of this software if they offered varying 
 levels of it along with commercial licenses.  $600 for a stripped-down 3DS 
 Max?  Sure, if I'm really into that stuff, why not.  But with $3000 I can, 
 oh I don't know, buy a car, or feed myself for a year.


What if you're really into Ferraris.. but cant afford one?

To do 3d modeling you dont have to have 3DS Max. There's plenty of other 
options, even free options.

But some people have to have the L33T software. Like some audiophiles have 
to have oxygen free cables. And this is the main problem with the audio 
software industry imo. A lot of people want their tracks going through the 
top of the line plugins, cause they think that'll make 'em sound pro. And 
they cant afford them so they pirate them. So companies making cheaper ones, 
which are often just as good, loose sales.

(That's not aimed at you btw, just a general rant)



 Aug 16 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de>  writes:


Jb wrote:

 "downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
 news:g86h0t$2dur$1 digitalmars.com...

 I wouldn't pay for the stuff I pirate. I pirate english movies because I 
 don't
 like watching German movies. Take Dark Knight. I want to watch it. But I
 don't want to watch it enough to see the German version, or enough to go
 and import a DVD. If there were no P2P networks, I would _never_ watch it.

 So the fact that I'm probably going to pirate it in half a year or so does
  _not_ equate to a lost sale.


 
 It may not result in a lost sale directly. But if you couldnt get the Dark 
 Knight for free, or couldnt download Photoshop for free, you would probably 
 be more inclined to pay for other things.
 
 I mean sure most people who pirate Photoshop wouldn't pay the $200 (or 
 whatever it is) to buy the legit version. But by pirating photoshop they are 
 satisfying a need they have that would likely have to be satisfied by 
 cheaper alternatives.
 
 So Adobe may not have lost a sale but someone else has.
 


Indeed. GIMP has.

Oh wait, they're open-source.


 

 FWIW, I pay for many of the games I play. And I have a legitimate reason 
 to
 download them first - Linux :) There's a high chance that the game won't 
 work
 anyway.


 
 Well to be honest I do download pirate software / music. But if i use / 
 listen to somthing I generaly pay for a legit version.
 
 

 Well there's still some percentage of what they pirate that they probably
 would have paid for. So it does still hurt developers / producers.


 But less than is commonly claimed.


 
 I'm sure people on both sides exagerate the figures.
 
 

 I know quite a few developers in the pro audio industry who have seen 
 their
 sales fall through the floor as soon as their software turns up on bit
 torrent / rapidshare ect. And I really mean dropped by 80%. It's why so 
 many
 pro audio companies are adopting hardware dongles.

 I offer an open challenge to any of freeloaders to put a possitive 
 communist
 spin on that.


 I'd like to see the numbers on that.

 Specifically, number of IPs that downloaded the software, as compared
 to precise sales figures.

 It sounds like somebody saw their sales going down, and went out to find a 
 reason.


 
 Well I dont have sales figures, but i've heard the same story from 3 
 different developers. Ok 80% was the worst case scenario.
 
 That said, it's got to be bad or why would so many pro audio developers, 
 (and some of these are small developers, 1 or 2 employees), go to the 
 trouble of using hardware dongles, which chop 20-30% off their profits? Not 
 only do users have to buy the dongle themselves, developers have to licence 
 the drm software, and the hassle of building it into their apps.
 
 And on top off that they loose a fair percentage of existing customers 
 because many people simply wont use dongled products.
 


So .. is it actually worth it for them?

Numbers would be nice :)


 I guess the point is that even if only 10% of pirate copies equate to a lost 
 sale, or money not spent in the industry, that could very well be 50% of 
 sales for *some* developers.
 
 Whether this is just somthing that's particulary bad in the audio software 
 industry I dont know, but of all my musician freinds I cant think of any who 
 would pay for software when they can get it for free. I can remember getting 
 "huh.. you piad for it??" quite a few times when telling them about some new 
 plugin / app i bought.
 
 They are happy to spend $4000 on a custom bass, or an electonic kit, or a 
 sampler, but software.. well they dont need to so they dont.


I admit that appears weird. I'd certainly pay for any software I'd intend to
use in anything like commercial or public circumstances.

I do hope that I'm not the exception.



 Aug 16 2008



  parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com>  writes:


"downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g8772n$lda$1 digitalmars.com...

 So Adobe may not have lost a sale but someone else has.


 Indeed. GIMP has.

 Oh wait, they're open-source.


Well for sure, Linux has probably lost out aswell because of how easy and 
how many people pirate Windows.



 Well I dont have sales figures, but i've heard the same story from 3
 different developers. Ok 80% was the worst case scenario.

 That said, it's got to be bad or why would so many pro audio developers,
 (and some of these are small developers, 1 or 2 employees), go to the
 trouble of using hardware dongles, which chop 20-30% off their profits? 
 Not
 only do users have to buy the dongle themselves, developers have to 
 licence
 the drm software, and the hassle of building it into their apps.

 And on top off that they loose a fair percentage of existing customers
 because many people simply wont use dongled products.


 So .. is it actually worth it for them?


From what I've been told yes. I dont know actual figures cause these are 
just people (other developers) i've chatted to in forums / mailing lists.

One of the main pro audio sites online KvR, there seems to be an anouncment 
every month or so of that the new version of XYZ will be using Syncrosoft, 
or Pace, or some such. And then the long customer revolt thread "they'll 
never get another penny from me"...

But I cant see how it couldnt be worth it. Many developers are adopting it, 
and afaik, none have dropped it yet. And it's been going on for a few years 
now.



 Whether this is just somthing that's particulary bad in the audio 
 software
 industry I dont know, but of all my musician freinds I cant think of any 
 who
 would pay for software when they can get it for free. I can remember 
 getting
 "huh.. you piad for it??" quite a few times when telling them about some 
 new
 plugin / app i bought.

 They are happy to spend $4000 on a custom bass, or an electonic kit, or a
 sampler, but software.. well they dont need to so they dont.


 I admit that appears weird. I'd certainly pay for any software I'd intend 
 to use
 in anything like commercial or public circumstances.

 I do hope that I'm not the exception.


You're not the exception, but I dont think you're the rule either.



 Aug 16 2008



  parent  Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Jb wrote:

 "downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
 news:g8772n$lda$1 digitalmars.com...

 So Adobe may not have lost a sale but someone else has.


 Indeed. GIMP has.

 Oh wait, they're open-source.


 
 Well for sure, Linux has probably lost out aswell because of how easy and 
 how many people pirate Windows.
 


If I could I'd be on Linux only. In fact, I have installed it for my mom
and prefer OSS when possible. Problem is that there are courses at the
university that publish material/homeworks/etc in doc format with
math-type formulas. Open office cannot show those correctly since the
math-type format is proprietary and only available on windows. BTW, Open
Office on windows supports OLE and can show those documents if you have
math-type installed already.

Solving this problem will allow more students to adopt Linux.



 Aug 16 2008



prev sibling  parent  Mike <vertex gmx.at>  writes:


Jb Wrote:


 Whether this is just somthing that's particulary bad in the audio software 
 industry I dont know, but of all my musician freinds I cant think of any who 
 would pay for software when they can get it for free. I can remember getting 
 "huh.. you piad for it??" quite a few times when telling them about some new 
 plugin / app i bought.


Example: I've bought Ableton Live version 1.5 and upgraded to 5. But I sure as
hell won't shell out more money for later versions. Why? They finally put in
some much needed features which were lacking before (like External Instrument),
but in no way are worth the upgrade price; instead they spend all their time
and effort developing their own plugins and charging money for it. As if there
weren't enough plugins already. Excellent free ones. As if the time wouldn't be
spent better on finally delivering much needed features like track folders or
bezier automation or ... maybe ... FIXING THE DAMN BUGS! OR SOME MODULARITY!
Why has every damn instrument its own filters? Its own overdrive? Its own base
waveforms which CAN'T BE USED WITH OTHER INSTRUMENTS! Has nobody ever thought
that I could want to use the 24db high pass with AutoFilter or one of
Operator's waveforms in Simpler maybe, just for fun?

Oh no, we can't do that ... BECAUSE WE FUCKING CHARGE EXTRA FOR EVERY MODULE.

The other companies aren't much better. It's just bloat after bloat, feature
creep and pretty, blinking, useless interfaces with UI metaphors that worked on
a tape machine in the 70ies but don't translate well to a keyboard/mouse
interface. They never have.

Or take Reason: Now come on! Spend some time delivering a USEFUL ReWire
standard with more than two apps at the samt time or ... crazy things like ...
AUDIO IN ... and stop wasting time on the 5000th vocoder plugin and, let me
tell you, I'm sick of the damn wires. And I'm sick of sitting in front of
perfect screen replicas of analog hardware interfaces, because it's a pointless
waste of effort. At least Ableton has understood that, but Steinberg does this
all the time too.

I'm entirely sick of it. Yeah, I torrented the last versions of Live, Reason,
Cubase; but after all I've given up anyway. I never reached the productivity I
had on my Yamaha RS7000 with any audio software; in fact I stopped making music
effectively (this dawned on me some day). Recently I dusted off the RS7000 ...
what a pleasure. And I've now switched to Ubuntu anyway, I'm finished with
paying for software upgrades that are 10% essential and 90% bloat.

Phew. Now I feel better. Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to explain this
former paying customer's reasons for - at least some time - pirating audio
software.

-Mike



 Aug 16 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Yigal Chripun wrote:


 all we want to do is just write code


Here you are implicitely exhibiting a fact about yourself and a 
preconception about other people.

If you really are just writing code then there is no intellectual 
property of yours in the resulting peace of (des)information.

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 16 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply JMNorris <nospam nospam.com>  writes:


Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in
news:g83na1$8jb$1 digitalmars.com: 

 I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.


Just curious:  what is the old thread that we're not polluting?

-- 
JMNorris



 Aug 16 2008



  parent  Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


JMNorris wrote:

 Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in
 news:g83na1$8jb$1 digitalmars.com: 

 I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.


 
 Just curious:  what is the old thread that we're not polluting?
 


The one about "tango vs. Phobos" renamed later to "The death of D" which
apparently we do continue to pollute...



 Aug 16 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net>  writes:


This thread has been all about works that are meant for sale, books, music,
software. Someone makes the assertion that they have a right to copy.
Consider this case;

You write a highly poetic and very private piece in an email to your wife.
In fact it is so good that if presented in a book, you could make good
money out of it. But still, it is very private, and you have no itention of
showing it to anyone but your wife. Do others still have a right to copy
this if they inadvertently came over it?

If the answer to the latter question is yes, then you also accept that
anyone have the right to read and know everything written by others,
including dictatorial governments towards their political counterparts.

I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from other's
eye is no different than the intention of keeping the work private unless
someone pays for it.

If you disagree with this, you should also think it is ok by your government
to pry on your private information. If you don't think this is ok, but
still disagree with me, then you have met yourself in the door.

As a person with morals and ethics, you should always honor the authors
intentions (the exception could be (and this also normally exists in
current frameworks of law) if the author's reasoning for keeping something
away from the public is the intention to do bad). Unless the author have
explicitly stated the intention is to give the work away for free, you
should honor that he wants to be paid, because you need to make the
assumption that the author needs at least some of those money to live. That
he may earn more if successful is a bonus to him and irrelevant to this
case, because only selling one item (which is also possible) quite surely
will _not_ be enough to give him what he needs. Such cases could be
rectified by the state with enough political will in any case.

If you don't think you have an obligation to honor the author, then I will
claim that you probably are more morally and ethically flawed than you like
to think you are :) I won't claim to be an exception to that group, but I
do try to follow the above suggestion of honoring the authors myself.

Note that I also think that prices on software seems to be very high in many
cases, and I like open source software better than closed source, but I do
not think copying it without the author's consent is the way to solve it.
Buy the cheaper competition, or become the competition. This is what a
modern market place is all about.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent  sambeau <sambeau-nospam sambeau.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from other's
 eye is no different than the intention of keeping the work private unless
 someone pays for it.
 
 If you disagree with this, you should also think it is ok by your government
 to pry on your private information. If you don't think this is ok, but
 still disagree with me, then you have met yourself in the door.


...

 As a person with morals and ethics, you should always honor the authors
 intentions (the exception could be (and this also normally exists in
 current frameworks of law) if the author's reasoning for keeping something
 away from the public is the intention to do bad). Unless the author have
 explicitly stated the intention is to give the work away for free, you
 should honor that he wants to be paid, because you need to make the
 assumption that the author needs at least some of those money to live.


Very well put. Insightful. Full of truth and a splendid argument.
Made me think.
Thanks,
s



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eye is no different than the intention of keeping the work
 private unless someone pays for it.


You just claimed, that after someone payed for the work he is allowed 
to put that work into the public at his own will, thereby enabling 
copying. 

In fact this has been decided in a case in germany, where someone sold 
the right to publish private facts exclusive to one newspaper and then  
wanted to inhibit other newspapers to write about the same facts.

Do you want to make your statement above a bit more complicated?

-manfred
-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net>  writes:


Manfred_Nowak wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eye is no different than the intention of keeping the work
 private unless someone pays for it.


 
 You just claimed, that after someone payed for the work he is allowed
 to put that work into the public at his own will, thereby enabling
 copying.
 
 In fact this has been decided in a case in germany, where someone sold
 the right to publish private facts exclusive to one newspaper and then
 wanted to inhibit other newspapers to write about the same facts.
 
 Do you want to make your statement above a bit more complicated?


I agree that it should be revised to:

"I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the work
private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A right to copy
it, or sell on to others, would be an additional widening of the authors
intention, and still the readers obligation to honor."

As for the case above, I am not sure it is covered by my simple thoughts.
FWIW, private facts such as those that are often exclusively paid for by
news papers can probably not be considered to be a work by the one who sold
it, but rather just information. The seller has sold it to someone else to
publicize, and thus his own rights to keep it private have diminished, if
for no other reason that it would be difficult to further assert the
intention of keeping it private on some level (ie limit to one paper). If
the seller wrote a piece (maybe an essay) that was exclusively printed in
this paper, I don't the german court would accept that it was printed
elsewhere without the express permission from the author.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 "I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the
 work private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A
 right to copy it, or sell on to others, would be an additional
 widening of the authors intention, and still the readers
 obligation to honor." 


Now, that you have made your statement a bit more complex, you 
introduced new terms  like "author", "copy", "read/view". This terms 
have a fuzzy definition only and I doubt that anyone is able to 
define them in advance and sufficient detail.

For example the wording does not exclude the case where someone payed 
for the right to "read/view" a work, encrypts it and then publishes 
the encrypted work. This would not violate the right he has payed 
for, because no one can "read/view" the original work. In addition 
the encrypted work might hold marks of his own "author"-ship, because 
he himself wrote the encrypting program. 

Then someone other finds "by accident" the key to the encrypted work, 
"copies" the encrypted work, decrypts it; then spends no look at the 
decrypted work, but feeds it into the appropriate compiler; then 
enjoys the resulting functionality.

Is this finder of the key allowed
1) to publish/sell his findings, because he is the "author" of the 
resulting code/algorithm, which transforms a publicly available peace 
of (des)information into some functionality?
2) to enjoy the functionality?

-manfred
  


-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net>  writes:


Manfred_Nowak wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 "I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the
 work private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A
 right to copy it, or sell on to others, would be an additional
 widening of the authors intention, and still the readers
 obligation to honor."


 
 Now, that you have made your statement a bit more complex, you
 introduced new terms  like "author", "copy", "read/view". This terms
 have a fuzzy definition only and I doubt that anyone is able to
 define them in advance and sufficient detail.
 
 For example the wording does not exclude the case where someone payed
 for the right to "read/view" a work, encrypts it and then publishes
 the encrypted work. This would not violate the right he has payed
 for, because no one can "read/view" the original work. In addition
 the encrypted work might hold marks of his own "author"-ship, because
 he himself wrote the encrypting program.
 
 Then someone other finds "by accident" the key to the encrypted work,
 "copies" the encrypted work, decrypts it; then spends no look at the
 decrypted work, but feeds it into the appropriate compiler; then
 enjoys the resulting functionality.
 
 Is this finder of the key allowed
 1) to publish/sell his findings, because he is the "author" of the
 resulting code/algorithm, which transforms a publicly available peace
 of (des)information into some functionality?
 2) to enjoy the functionality?
 
 -manfred


Although it may have appeared that way, I didn't set out to define a
framework that covers all cases. My intent was to show that those
argumenting for all information (however produced and presented) being
freely available, have a bad case as they are likely to have personal
information themselves that they won't like being considered free.

In fact, I bet that most of those asserting their right to copy media from
Pirate Bay, protest the new laws in Sweden removing the right to keep email
conversations private. And that is a contradiction showing their hypocrisy.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent  "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 My intent was to show that those
 argumenting for all information (however produced and presented)
 being freely available, have a bad case as they are likely to have
 personal information themselves that they won't like being
 considered free. 


I am with you in this. But this does not eliminate the resulting 
problem of the missing definitions for "information" and "free 
availability".

One needs these definitions if one wants to restrict free availability 
of information on demand.

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling  parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 "I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the
 work private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A
 right to copy it, or sell on to others, would be an additional
 widening of the authors intention, and still the readers
 obligation to honor."


 Now, that you have made your statement a bit more complex, you
 introduced new terms  like "author", "copy", "read/view". This terms
 have a fuzzy definition only and I doubt that anyone is able to
 define them in advance and sufficient detail.

 For example the wording does not exclude the case where someone payed
 for the right to "read/view" a work, encrypts it and then publishes
 the encrypted work. This would not violate the right he has payed
 for, because no one can "read/view" the original work. In addition
 the encrypted work might hold marks of his own "author"-ship, because
 he himself wrote the encrypting program.

 Then someone other finds "by accident" the key to the encrypted work,
 "copies" the encrypted work, decrypts it; then spends no look at the
 decrypted work, but feeds it into the appropriate compiler; then
 enjoys the resulting functionality.

 Is this finder of the key allowed
 1) to publish/sell his findings, because he is the "author" of the
 resulting code/algorithm, which transforms a publicly available peace
 of (des)information into some functionality?
 2) to enjoy the functionality?

 -manfred


 
 Although it may have appeared that way, I didn't set out to define a
 framework that covers all cases. My intent was to show that those
 argumenting for all information (however produced and presented) being
 freely available, have a bad case as they are likely to have personal
 information themselves that they won't like being considered free.
 
 In fact, I bet that most of those asserting their right to copy media from
 Pirate Bay, protest the new laws in Sweden removing the right to keep email
 conversations private. And that is a contradiction showing their hypocrisy.
 


I think you confuse two separate issues here:
a) privacy:
I _DON't_ want to give information that only I know
or
No one can pry my brain and take out information by force
vs.
b) I _DID_ wanted to give the information to someone (say newspaper A).

Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
decision for themselves.



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com>  writes:


"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g8adb5$f92$1 digitalmars.com...

 Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
 person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
 decision for themselves.


No it's not. That's not it at all.

For example I can give you a recording of a song I wrote. You could work out 
the tune and melody, and then teach the song to other people. You can even 
perform the song in public. (at least in the UK).

If i gave you a book I wrote you could share the information in the book 
with other people. You can talk about it, tell them about, you could even 
write your own book on the subject.

What you cant do is copy my book and give it to other people, nor can you 
copy my book and pass it off as your own work.

Copyright does not stop you sharing information. It stops you copying other 
peoples work.

What will it take to get you to understand this?



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Jb wrote:

 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:g8adb5$f92$1 digitalmars.com...

 Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
 person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
 decision for themselves.


 
 No it's not. That's not it at all.
 
 For example I can give you a recording of a song I wrote. You could work out 
 the tune and melody, and then teach the song to other people. You can even 
 perform the song in public. (at least in the UK).


that's irrelevant.

 
 If i gave you a book I wrote you could share the information in the book 
 with other people. You can talk about it, tell them about, you could even 
 write your own book on the subject.


again irrelevant.

 
 What you cant do is copy my book and give it to other people, nor can you 
 copy my book and pass it off as your own work.


two things:
A) I now have a copy of your book which I should be able to do what ever
I want with it - including copying it, however you just said I can't
copy it. hence, you prevented me from doing whatever I want  with it. Do
you need this to be spelled formally with math?

B) passing off someone else's work as my own is not and should never be
connected with copyright. The fact that OSS licenses need to specify
this in the copyright is ridiculous. this should be by default. No
matter if the work is entirely closed source by MS or put in public
domain by Walter Bright, you should never be able to steal someone
else's credit.
This should be handled (I think) by slender laws or something like that.


 
 Copyright does not stop you sharing information. It stops you copying other 
 peoples work.
 
 What will it take to get you to understand this?
 


when you buy a chair, you own the chair and can do what ever you want
with it including manufacturing by yourself a copy of it and give it
away for free. you cannot copyright a chair. copyright prevents that for
software hence limiting my rights (the inherit rights of the public).
this limitation needs to be justifiable and this is the core of the
argument. What will it take to get you to understand that??



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Yigal Chripun wrote:


 you cannot copyright a chair.


This might be true in the wording, but if it is true in a higher sense:  

  Are you yourself copyrightable?

If you are not copyrightable and are moving in public, then: is 
everyone allowed to make a copy of your body without your consent?

Do you think, that you, the original, are worth more than any copy of 
yours? 

Otherwise: is it okay for you, that your copy is able to empty your 
bank-account, because for the bank your copy is indistinguishable from 
yourself?

Please note again, that this is an appeal to a higher sense, i.e. at 
least assume that the technical issues for copying humans are solvable 
within a short period of your lifetime.

-manfred



-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:19:18 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:


 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 

 you cannot copyright a chair.


 
 This might be true in the wording, but if it is true in a higher sense:
 
   Are you yourself copyrightable?
 
 If you are not copyrightable and are moving in public, then: is everyone
 allowed to make a copy of your body without your consent?
 
 Do you think, that you, the original, are worth more than any copy of
 yours?
 
 Otherwise: is it okay for you, that your copy is able to empty your
 bank-account, because for the bank your copy is indistinguishable from
 yourself?
 
 Please note again, that this is an appeal to a higher sense, i.e. at
 least assume that the technical issues for copying humans are solvable
 within a short period of your lifetime.
 
 -manfred


Manfred, I am sorry but I already know how this can be argued against. If 
he himself makes a copy of himself and gives it to someone, then yes that 
person is able to make and sell copies of Yigal. The problem here is 
deciding what rights a creator has and what rights the owner of a copy 
has.



 Aug 17 2008



  parent  "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Jesse Phillips wrote:


 If 
 he himself makes a copy of himself and gives it to someone, then
 yes that person is able to make and sell copies of Yigal.


Let us wait, whether such argument will indeed come up, because it 
seems easy defeatable.

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:19:18AM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

   Are you yourself copyrightable?


Of course not, that's absurd. Consider if you were: if a person was
copyrightable, he would have the legal power to force his kids not
to have any kids of their own - after all, a person's children would be
derivative works of himself as far as copyright goes.

"Sorry kids, if you don't agree to the EULA for my DNA, I'm going
to have to terminate your license to copy it." [!!!]

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 if a person was
 copyrightable, he would have the legal power to force his kids not
 to have any kids of their own


Not at all, because
1) "copy" has the connotation of a non canonical mere technical 
procedure
2) one would have to define reproduction, especially sexual 
reproduction, to be copying
3) if 2) has been done, then the first child has the legal right to 
force his parents to have no more childs or---that its parents have had 
no right to copy it to what it is now, especially if the child is 
somehow disabled 
4) the clinch resulting out of 3) seems unsolvable and a try to 
establish the above force on one's own kids might be interpretable as 
an abuse

Therefore the main counter argument is provided by 1) and 2): sexual 
reproduction is not definable to be "copying"

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



 next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 

 if a person was
 copyrightable, he would have the legal power to force his kids not
 to have any kids of their own


 
 Not at all, because
 1) "copy" has the connotation of a non canonical mere technical 
 procedure
 2) one would have to define reproduction, especially sexual 
 reproduction, to be copying
 3) if 2) has been done, then the first child has the legal right to 
 force his parents to have no more childs or---that its parents have had 
 no right to copy it to what it is now, especially if the child is 
 somehow disabled 
 4) the clinch resulting out of 3) seems unsolvable and a try to 
 establish the above force on one's own kids might be interpretable as 
 an abuse
 
 Therefore the main counter argument is provided by 1) and 2): sexual 
 reproduction is not definable to be "copying"
 
 -manfred
 


Huh?
your logic is unclear to me - how can a child legally force his parents
not to have more kids?
in what way is it relevant at all if the kid is indeed with some disability?



 Aug 18 2008



  parent  "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Yigal Chripun wrote:


 how can a child legally force his parents not to have more kids?
 in what way is it relevant at all if the kid is indeed with some
 disability? 


Please recall the assumption, that sexual reproduction is defined to be 
"copying". Your questions seem to be hints, that such a definition will 
be incompatible with your notion of logic.

Illustration:
Assume you are confronted with two files "f1" and "f2" in a linux-
system. Executing `cmp f1 f2' reveals no differences.

When now somebody says, that file "f1" has some attribute, how can one 
conclude that file "f2" does _not_ have the same attribute?

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:21:16AM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 2) one would have to define reproduction, especially sexual 
 reproduction, to be copying


Reproduction is copying:

From:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Areproduction&btnG=Google+Search

Definitions of reproduction on the Web:
 * the act of making copies; "Gutenberg's reproduction of holy texts was far
more efficient" 
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(See the original link for a full list of other definitions, this is only one.)


 3) if 2) has been done, then the first child has the legal right to 
 force his parents to have no more childs or---that its parents have had 
 no right to copy it to what it is now, especially if the child is 
 somehow disabled 


This doesn't follow. The children are derivative works of their parents,
not the other way around.

Imagine if I took a software library,  modified it, and released it under
my own license. Good so far (original license permitting, of course).

Then I tried to force the original library to also be released under my
license. I can't do that. The best I can do is try to talk its authors
into re-releasing it under my license; I cannot force them to do so.

If forcing the original's license to be changed to match a derivative work
was possible, we wouldn't be having this conversation - this thread would
never have been created!


Now, imagine that software's original license dictated the terms of the
licensing of derivative works, like the GNU GPL or most software product
licenses do. If I tried to release my modification under anything other than
a permitted license, they could sue me for copyright infringement.

Why can they sue me and I can't sue them? Simple - they were there first, so
the law gives them the power.

Same with parents and children in this scenario. The parents were there first,
so they would be the ones with the legal power over their children.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net



 Aug 18 2008



  parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 Same with parents and children in this scenario. The parents were
 there first, so they would be the ones with the legal power over
 their children. 


How can you decide which of two objects is the parent of the other, if 
sexual reproduction is defined to be "copying", i.e. both objects are 
holding the same relevant information? 

-manfred   
-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 18 2008



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:46:44PM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 How can you decide which of two objects is the parent of the other, if 
 sexual reproduction is defined to be "copying", i.e. both objects are 
 holding the same relevant information? 
 
 -manfred   


Age. The one that was there first is the original, and the subsequent ones
are the copies.

You might not be able to tell the age by directly looking at the data
itself (like with a copy of a file), but you can figure it out through
other means (possibly the creation date in the file's metadata, or maybe
by documentation from another source.)

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net



 Aug 18 2008



  parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:46:44PM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 How can you decide which of two objects is the parent of the
 other, if sexual reproduction is defined to be "copying", i.e.
 both objects are holding the same relevant information? 
 
 -manfred   


 
 Age. The one that was there first is the original, and the
 subsequent ones are the copies.
 
 You might not be able to tell the age by directly looking at the
 data itself (like with a copy of a file), but you can figure it
 out through other means (possibly the creation date in the file's
 metadata, or maybe by documentation from another source.)


Now we are engaged with the core: what is copying?

If a copied object is not forced to hold the exactly same relevant 
information as the original, then how can you prove for differing 
objects, that one object is indeed a copy of the other?

If sufficient similarity is enough for a copy:
1) how do one measure similarity?
2) Is it tolerable, that after some iterated copy steps the rsult can 
no more considered to be a copy of the original?

If age is an allowed attribute for comparing objects: how can one 
exclude, that none of the objects is the original; i.e. when you 
compare an uncle with his nephew, but the original was some anchestor 
of both?

-manfred
-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 18 2008



  parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Again, these debates are taking too much of my time and I'm getting behind
schedule on more important things, so this will by my last word.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:57PM +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

 If a copied object is not forced to hold the exactly same relevant 
 information as the original, then how can you prove for differing 
 objects, that one object is indeed a copy of the other?


if( a is b || a == b ) { writefln("A is a copy of B!"); }

I'll leave writing a.opEquals(b) as an exercise to the reader :)

But for something like files, doing a bit by bit compare gives a good
result. The meta data might be different, but for the purposes of calling
it a copy, the main contents are what matters.


 If sufficient similarity is enough for a copy:
 1) how do one measure similarity?


Depends on the specific object.


 2) Is it tolerable, that after some iterated copy steps the rsult can 
 no more considered to be a copy of the original?


Like this?

auto a = whatever;
auto b = a;
auto c = b; // here, c == a, so c is still a copy of a.

It might have been created through a roundabout process, but the end result
is the same.

After that, I'd say that once you do any modifications to the new one
(something like b++;), you no longer have a copy. It would be a derivative
work then.


 If age is an allowed attribute for comparing objects: how can one 
 exclude, that none of the objects is the original; i.e. when you 
 compare an uncle with his nephew, but the original was some anchestor 
 of both?


You can't say this for sure, but in practice, you'd assume whomever
says he has the original first gets to be it until someone comes up
with evidence to challenge that claim.

Above, variable a is considered the original until variable whatever goes
ahead and challenges that in court, using a debugging log as evidence to
prove that he was there before variable a.


 
 -manfred


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling  parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>  writes:


"Manfred_Nowak" wrote

 Yigal Chripun wrote:


 you cannot copyright a chair.


 This might be true in the wording, but if it is true in a higher sense:

  Are you yourself copyrightable?


No.  You cannot copyright physical entities.  You can copyright a picture of 
a person, but that only protects that one picture.  If another person took a 
picture at the exact same time from a different camera, that is not 
copyright infringement.

However, scary stuff is happening with gene patents, so it may in the future 
be possible for a person to be patented.

-Steve 



 Aug 18 2008



  parent  "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 You cannot copyright physical entities.


My appeal requests a higher sense. Please do not stick to the meaning 
of a law for a specific country.

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net>  writes:


Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Jb wrote:

 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:g8adb5$f92$1 digitalmars.com...

 Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
 person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
 decision for themselves.


 
 No it's not. That's not it at all.
 
 For example I can give you a recording of a song I wrote. You could work
 out the tune and melody, and then teach the song to other people. You can
 even perform the song in public. (at least in the UK).


 
 that's irrelevant.

 
 If i gave you a book I wrote you could share the information in the book
 with other people. You can talk about it, tell them about, you could even
 write your own book on the subject.


 
 again irrelevant.

 
 What you cant do is copy my book and give it to other people, nor can you
 copy my book and pass it off as your own work.


 
 two things:
 A) I now have a copy of your book which I should be able to do what ever
 I want with it - including copying it, however you just said I can't
 copy it. hence, you prevented me from doing whatever I want  with it. Do
 you need this to be spelled formally with math?
 
 B) passing off someone else's work as my own is not and should never be
 connected with copyright. The fact that OSS licenses need to specify
 this in the copyright is ridiculous. this should be by default. No
 matter if the work is entirely closed source by MS or put in public
 domain by Walter Bright, you should never be able to steal someone
 else's credit.
 This should be handled (I think) by slender laws or something like that.
 

 
 Copyright does not stop you sharing information. It stops you copying
 other peoples work.
 
 What will it take to get you to understand this?
 


 
 when you buy a chair, you own the chair and can do what ever you want
 with it including manufacturing by yourself a copy of it and give it
 away for free. you cannot copyright a chair. copyright prevents that for
 software hence limiting my rights (the inherit rights of the public).
 this limitation needs to be justifiable and this is the core of the
 argument. What will it take to get you to understand that??


Wow, bad example. Copying a chair is indeed illegal and proven to be so in
court. Take the Stressless chair by Ekornes as an example.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 
 Wow, bad example. Copying a chair is indeed illegal and proven to be so in
 court. Take the Stressless chair by Ekornes as an example.
 


are you sure you can put copyright on chairs? that sounds very strange
to me. I don't know the details of your example, but are you sure it
isn't about patent law rather than copyright law?
i.e the original creator patented some design idea (which is
information) and so the restriction is on that design idea rather than
the chair itself. you cannot copy the chair only as a consequence.



 Aug 18 2008



 next sibling parent  Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net>  writes:


Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 
 Wow, bad example. Copying a chair is indeed illegal and proven to be so
 in court. Take the Stressless chair by Ekornes as an example.
 


 
 are you sure you can put copyright on chairs? that sounds very strange
 to me. I don't know the details of your example, but are you sure it
 isn't about patent law rather than copyright law?
 i.e the original creator patented some design idea (which is
 information) and so the restriction is on that design idea rather than
 the chair itself. you cannot copy the chair only as a consequence.


It was about copying the design. Designs are as protected as the written
word. Another example in a similar vein is how you can get 10k Euro fines
for walking around with inexpensive copies of expensive hand bags.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling  parent  "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>  writes:


"Yigal Chripun" wrote

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Wow, bad example. Copying a chair is indeed illegal and proven to be so 
 in
 court. Take the Stressless chair by Ekornes as an example.


 are you sure you can put copyright on chairs? that sounds very strange
 to me. I don't know the details of your example, but are you sure it
 isn't about patent law rather than copyright law?
 i.e the original creator patented some design idea (which is
 information) and so the restriction is on that design idea rather than
 the chair itself. you cannot copy the chair only as a consequence.


You cannot copyright physical entities.  You can patent them.  However, I 
think you can trademark the shape/design of something (like the shape of the 
coke bottle).  You can copyright the design of the chair, but then you would 
have to have the design of the chair published (which would be somwhat 
uncommon).  And even then, someone could copy the design if they understood 
the meaning of it.  Remember, copyright protects the raw content of media, 
not the meaning of the content.

The lawsuit I found with this company involves trademark infringement.

-Steve 



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling  parent  "Jb" <jb nowhere.com>  writes:


"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g8amq7$165q$1 digitalmars.com...

 Jb wrote:

 "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:g8adb5$f92$1 digitalmars.com...

 Copyright is about some person A decides to give the information TO
 person B AND ALSO forcefully deny that person B to make the same
 decision for themselves.


 No it's not. That's not it at all.

 For example I can give you a recording of a song I wrote. You could work 
 out
 the tune and melody, and then teach the song to other people. You can 
 even
 perform the song in public. (at least in the UK).


 that's irrelevant.


No it's not. You claimed copyright stops you sharing information.

IT DOESNT.

YOU ARE WRONG.



 If i gave you a book I wrote you could share the information in the book
 with other people. You can talk about it, tell them about, you could even
 write your own book on the subject.


 again irrelevant.


No it's not. You claimed copyright stops you sharing information.

IT DOESNT.

YOU ARE WRONG.



 What you cant do is copy my book and give it to other people, nor can you
 copy my book and pass it off as your own work.


 two things:
 A) I now have a copy of your book which I should be able to do what ever
 I want with it - including copying it, however you just said I can't
 copy it. hence, you prevented me from doing whatever I want  with it.


Yes becasue I gave it to you under the condition that you wouldnt copy it.

IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH THAT CONDITION THEN I WONT GIVE IT TO YOU.

THATS WHY ITS CALLED

"COPY" --  "RIGHT"

Because I am retaining the right top COPY it myself.

I am not stopping you sharing the information.

As you have erronousely claimed on multiple occaisions.

And if you dont like the conditions by which the author is offering the work 
you are free to look elsewhere.



 B) passing off someone else's work as my own is not and should never be
 connected with copyright. The fact that OSS licenses need to specify
 this in the copyright is ridiculous. this should be by default. No
 matter if the work is entirely closed source by MS or put in public
 domain by Walter Bright, you should never be able to steal someone
 else's credit.


So it's wrong to steal the credit for somone elses work, but not wrong to 
actualy steal the work itslef?



 Copyright does not stop you sharing information. It stops you copying 
 other
 peoples work.

 What will it take to get you to understand this?


 when you buy a chair, you own the chair and can do what ever you want
 with it including manufacturing by yourself a copy of it and give it
 away for free. you cannot copyright a chair. copyright prevents that for
 software hence limiting my rights (the inherit rights of the public).
 this limitation needs to be justifiable and this is the core of the
 argument. What will it take to get you to understand that??


I've already said it needs to be limited, to about 20 years.

Thanks. 



 Aug 18 2008



prev sibling  parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:07:12 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 "I assert that the intention of keeping a private letter away from
 other's eyes is no different than the intention of keeping the work
 private unless someone pay for the right to read/view it. A right to
 copy it, or sell on to others, would be an additional widening of the
 authors intention, and still the readers obligation to honor."


 
 Now, that you have made your statement a bit more complex, you
 introduced new terms  like "author", "copy", "read/view". This terms
 have a fuzzy definition only and I doubt that anyone is able to define
 them in advance and sufficient detail.
 
 For example the wording does not exclude the case where someone payed
 for the right to "read/view" a work, encrypts it and then publishes the
 encrypted work. This would not violate the right he has payed for,
 because no one can "read/view" the original work. In addition the
 encrypted work might hold marks of his own "author"-ship, because he
 himself wrote the encrypting program.
 
 Then someone other finds "by accident" the key to the encrypted work,
 "copies" the encrypted work, decrypts it; then spends no look at the
 decrypted work, but feeds it into the appropriate compiler; then enjoys
 the resulting functionality.
 
 Is this finder of the key allowed
 1) to publish/sell his findings, because he is the "author" of the
 resulting code/algorithm, which transforms a publicly available peace of
 (des)information into some functionality? 2) to enjoy the functionality?
 
 -manfred


I'm a little lost, are we a legal comity trying to right the copyright 
law so that it can not be misinterpreted? Because I thought it was just 
to get an understanding of each others views, and it seems to me that you 
understand Lars's position on this and thus should not need explicit 
clarification. I myself have requested clarification for the use of the 
word information, but this is because me and Yigal do not seem to have 
the same understanding as to what it refers in the context used.



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com>  writes:


Jesse Phillips wrote:


 but this is because me and Yigal do not seem to have 
 the same understanding


Natural language is full of ambiguities. One can be glad to detect 
those ambiguities early.

Therefore: if one wants to restrict freedom, because one assumes that 
some or several can benefit from that restriction, then one has to set 
up unambiguous rules. Rules on how to detect violations, how the lost 
benefits are to be valued and how the violations should be prosecuted.

-manfred 

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/



 Aug 17 2008



  parent  Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:46:50 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:
 

 but this is because me and Yigal do not seem to have the same
 understanding


 
 Natural language is full of ambiguities. One can be glad to detect those
 ambiguities early.
 
 Therefore: if one wants to restrict freedom, because one assumes that
 some or several can benefit from that restriction, then one has to set
 up unambiguous rules. Rules on how to detect violations, how the lost
 benefits are to be valued and how the violations should be prosecuted.
 
 -manfred


Yes, but the point was that _you_ had an understanding of what was said 
or at least where it was going. The problem is not really knowing of the 
ambiguities, but addressing them. Since language is full of the 
ambiguities even trying to explain the main idea can lead to more that 
need to be explained. It is usually more efficient to assume that the 
idea can be communicated without nitpicking at what was said.

Pirating vs stealing, come on. I can agree with what downs is 
distinguishing here, but I don't see the point. They are both just as 
wrong as the other and can have the same effects (or at least that is 
where the argument is). 



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling  parent  "Jb" <jb nowhere.com>  writes:


"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
news:g899c8$1g9t$1 digitalmars.com...

 This thread has been all about works that are meant for sale, books, 
 music,
 software. Someone makes the assertion that they have a right to copy.
 Consider this case;


A very well reasoned and elloquant post.

*applauds* 



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:54:56 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.
 
 Lets start from the beginning: we live in a democracy which is a
 compromise between the right of the individual and the rights of the
 community he belongs to. One of the rights of the community is the right
 to public access to any idea/artistic creation any individual has
 published. The idea behind both laws, patent law and copyright law, is
 very similar even though they serve two distinct purposes: they give an
 exclusive time-span to the creator after coming forward with the
 creation on the expense of that right of the public in order to make it
 worthwhile for individuals in the community to come up with new ideas
 and to encourage new ideas and new creations.
 to answer the specific issues raised:
 
 Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


 
 Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
 in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
 business model for such a situation?"
 
 there are tons of possibilities: I could sell support and consulting
 services (if it works for Red Hat..) for example. all depends on the
 size and complexity of the product. say I developed an IDE ( I like
 IDEs..) I can also make my living by developing custom plugins ordered
 by customers. What's important to realize is that Software is a service
 not a product. and each service needs to have its own business model (so
 the business model appropriate for say an IDE won't suit an online
 game). I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code
 and get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's
 just wishful thinking.
 
 next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
 etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
 all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
 and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
 recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
 subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
 alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
 those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
 options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.
 
 To address Mike's post:
 Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
 product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
 model is wrong.
 When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
 oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
 breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
 (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
 was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
 to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
 money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
 not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
 much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.
 
 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who gives us 
this right, and why do we have them?

"Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out 
in the open."

This shows that you have given the right to others to distribute your 
software freely. Who gave you the right to say that that is what they 
could do?

As said before rights are an agreed upon social construct. We namely 
create this through past experience. To me it seems that your claim is 
that rights come from the ability to do something. You can copy and 
distribute which gives you the right to do so. Could you please explain 
the logic here, and try to keep out who gets hurt by what or what makes 
the best business model?

I claim that the creator has a right to control copies for distribution, 
and not because it helps him make a living or makes a good business 
model. This right is extended to him through a social construct because 
of the lack in physical control of said creation.

I wish to re-iterate here what I consider information is in the context 
that you use it. "Information can refer to a number of things, but only 
one of them will you get me close to agreeing should be free of charge 
once released to the public and that is, "Knowledge about a topic." and 
any combination of bits does not fall into this."



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who gives us
 this right, and why do we have them?


Let's do this another way. Instead of me trying to explain my POV again
I'll refer you to a post:
news://news.digitalmars.com:119/mailman.8.1219006500.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com
this is by Adam D. Ruppe and he explains it much better than I can. he's
post is the exact thing I'm trying to claim.



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:08:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:
  > Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who gives
  > us

 this right, and why do we have them?


 
 Let's do this another way. Instead of me trying to explain my POV again
 I'll refer you to a post:
 news://news.digitalmars.com:119/mailman.8.1219006500.19733.digitalmars-


d puremagic.com

 this is by Adam D. Ruppe and he explains it much better than I can. he's
 post is the exact thing I'm trying to claim.


Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
"Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
matters is the results."

Wrong. Don't care about the results. I'm all about the individuals rights.

"If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
focused."

Nope, my goal is to have rules and regulations make it so that people do 
not interfere with other persons or their property. And to do so people 
need to have rights, rights that don't interfere with other peoples 
rights. This creates a big problem with the below suggestion.

"Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
want to set).

"Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).

"Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally come
to an adequate conclusion."

I have set my goal, which heavily uses person's rights. And you have set 
yours, which is the best business model to have, what was it again, oh 
yes "information" spread.

I have said before that I don't care about best business model and 
disagree with you as to what information is.

I should probably continue on why I feel individual rights are more 
important than trying to help the world flourish with ideas and 
invention. People are greedy. My goal tries to tailer to this in a way 
that will help the flourishing of ideas and invention, yours just says it 
is a bad thing and should be denied. I do not see it as a bad thing, just 
a fact and no one should be punished for it (the free market can do that).



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com>  writes:


Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:08:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 

 Jesse Phillips wrote:
  > Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who gives
  > us

 this right, and why do we have them?


 Let's do this another way. Instead of me trying to explain my POV again
 I'll refer you to a post:
 news://news.digitalmars.com:119/mailman.8.1219006500.19733.digitalmars-


 d puremagic.com

 this is by Adam D. Ruppe and he explains it much better than I can. he's
 post is the exact thing I'm trying to claim.


 
 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 "Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
 matters is the results."
 
 Wrong. Don't care about the results. I'm all about the individuals rights.
 
 "If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
 great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
 focused."
 
 Nope, my goal is to have rules and regulations make it so that people do 
 not interfere with other persons or their property. And to do so people 
 need to have rights, rights that don't interfere with other peoples 
 rights. This creates a big problem with the below suggestion.
 
 "Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
 law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
 want to set).
 
 "Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
 be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).
 
 "Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
 objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally come
 to an adequate conclusion."
 
 I have set my goal, which heavily uses person's rights. And you have set 
 yours, which is the best business model to have, what was it again, oh 
 yes "information" spread.
 
 I have said before that I don't care about best business model and 
 disagree with you as to what information is.
 
 I should probably continue on why I feel individual rights are more 
 important than trying to help the world flourish with ideas and 
 invention. People are greedy. My goal tries to tailer to this in a way 
 that will help the flourishing of ideas and invention, yours just says it 
 is a bad thing and should be denied. I do not see it as a bad thing, just 
 a fact and no one should be punished for it (the free market can do that).


Do you own a mouse? not a real live one, but one that is connected to a
PC? if you do, than please click the link I provided. Your entire post
answers the *wrong* post.
Here's the link again in case I've mistyped it or something:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=75179



 Aug 17 2008



  parent  Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:13:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:08:23 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 

 Jesse Phillips wrote:
  > Alright, let us start from the beginning. What is a right, who
  > gives us

 this right, and why do we have them?


 Let's do this another way. Instead of me trying to explain my POV
 again I'll refer you to a post:
 news://news.digitalmars.com:119/






mailman.8.1219006500.19733.digitalmars-

 d puremagic.com

 this is by Adam D. Ruppe and he explains it much better than I can.
 he's post is the exact thing I'm trying to claim.


 
 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 "Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
 matters is the results."
 
 Wrong. Don't care about the results. I'm all about the individuals
 rights.
 
 "If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
 great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
 focused."
 
 Nope, my goal is to have rules and regulations make it so that people
 do not interfere with other persons or their property. And to do so
 people need to have rights, rights that don't interfere with other
 peoples rights. This creates a big problem with the below suggestion.
 
 "Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
 law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
 want to set).
 
 "Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
 be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).
 
 "Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
 objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally
 come to an adequate conclusion."
 
 I have set my goal, which heavily uses person's rights. And you have
 set yours, which is the best business model to have, what was it again,
 oh yes "information" spread.
 
 I have said before that I don't care about best business model and
 disagree with you as to what information is.
 
 I should probably continue on why I feel individual rights are more
 important than trying to help the world flourish with ideas and
 invention. People are greedy. My goal tries to tailer to this in a way
 that will help the flourishing of ideas and invention, yours just says
 it is a bad thing and should be denied. I do not see it as a bad thing,
 just a fact and no one should be punished for it (the free market can
 do that).


 
 Do you own a mouse? not a real live one, but one that is connected to a
 PC? if you do, than please click the link I provided. Your entire post
 answers the *wrong* post.
 Here's the link again in case I've mistyped it or something:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?


server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=75179

Ok sorry about that, I wasn't able to access your original news:// link 
so I had to do a google search on his name and that is what I found. 
Luckily I have already created a response for this one as well.

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=75206



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling next sibling parent  Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:54:56 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.
 
 Lets start from the beginning: we live in a democracy which is a
 compromise between the right of the individual and the rights of the
 community he belongs to. One of the rights of the community is the right
 to public access to any idea/artistic creation any individual has
 published. The idea behind both laws, patent law and copyright law, is
 very similar even though they serve two distinct purposes: they give an
 exclusive time-span to the creator after coming forward with the
 creation on the expense of that right of the public in order to make it
 worthwhile for individuals in the community to come up with new ideas
 and to encourage new ideas and new creations.
 to answer the specific issues raised:
 
 Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


 
 Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
 in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
 business model for such a situation?"
 
 there are tons of possibilities: I could sell support and consulting
 services (if it works for Red Hat..) for example. all depends on the
 size and complexity of the product. say I developed an IDE ( I like
 IDEs..) I can also make my living by developing custom plugins ordered
 by customers. What's important to realize is that Software is a service
 not a product. and each service needs to have its own business model (so
 the business model appropriate for say an IDE won't suit an online
 game). I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code
 and get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's
 just wishful thinking.
 
 next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
 etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
 all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
 and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
 recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
 subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
 alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
 those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
 options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.
 
 To address Mike's post:
 Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
 product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
 model is wrong.
 When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
 oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
 breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
 (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
 was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
 to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
 money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
 not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
 much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.
 
 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


Christopher Wright wrote:
"That is my natural right, since it is my ability. I do not claim that it
is right or good or just; society defines those, and society is not the
source of natural rights."

See, I disagree here. The "ability to" is not a right. Let me define it 
in a round about way. In my little world 'right' means 'correct,' so to 
have a right is to be able to do something that is correct. That is to 
say, to be able to do something that is socially acceptable.

To say it is a natural right, is just saying that doing so is such a 
basic and fundamental that it not only shouldn't need to be explained as 
to why you have it, but should be universal. Unfortunately it is a social 
construct and those things always take explaining to someone.

"But it's pointless to talk about natural rights. You can talk about
societal rights or, if you're so inclined, God-given rights."

see above.

"Well, yes. If fifty armed men showed up at your door and said that all
your pillow cases were now theirs, you wouldn't be inclined to argue."

No one said you had to argue, you may even claim to others they always 
own it. But by my definition of a right, 50 armed men don't have the 
right to claim it as theirs even if you give it to them.

"Being a recent invention, intellectual property protection is clearly not
a basic right of humans. Not all societies will require it."

I really don't care about all societies, just the ones where it exists.

"Because intellectual property is a recent invention, its implementations
may not be optimal. Unfortunately, a well-defined legal system predates
intellectual property, so it's harder to try out different mechanisms for
IP protection."

Yes I do agree it may not be well defined or have the correct laws 
surrounding it. I also agree that the legal system is flawed. Luckily 
that is not my concern for this argument.



 Aug 17 2008



prev sibling  parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:54:56 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 I've started a new thread so we don't pollute that other one.
 
 Lets start from the beginning: we live in a democracy which is a
 compromise between the right of the individual and the rights of the
 community he belongs to. One of the rights of the community is the right
 to public access to any idea/artistic creation any individual has
 published. The idea behind both laws, patent law and copyright law, is
 very similar even though they serve two distinct purposes: they give an
 exclusive time-span to the creator after coming forward with the
 creation on the expense of that right of the public in order to make it
 worthwhile for individuals in the community to come up with new ideas
 and to encourage new ideas and new creations.
 to answer the specific issues raised:
 
 Robert wrote:

 Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites
 are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's
 restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software
 (I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit
 your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day
 developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to
 use it without paying you?"


 
 Yes, people do have the right to use any software I create and put out
 in the open. The question you should have asked is this: "_what_ is you
 business model for such a situation?"
 
 there are tons of possibilities: I could sell support and consulting
 services (if it works for Red Hat..) for example. all depends on the
 size and complexity of the product. say I developed an IDE ( I like
 IDEs..) I can also make my living by developing custom plugins ordered
 by customers. What's important to realize is that Software is a service
 not a product. and each service needs to have its own business model (so
 the business model appropriate for say an IDE won't suit an online
 game). I know we are developers and all we want to do is just write code
 and get paid for it but unless you have a viable business model that's
 just wishful thinking.
 
 next point: you talked about online alternatives like netflix, itunes,
 etc. I'll assume you live in the US, and as such you live in a bubble.
 all those services are limited to the US and Canada. I live in Israel
 and none of those sites will let me in. Last I checked I tunes only
 recently allowed for people from Israel to get in and to a very limited
 subset of stuff (only software, I think). Therefore those are not
 alternatives for me. Most of the piracy doesn't come from the US where
 those services are available but from other countries where the "legal"
 options are much more expensive and no viable "legal" solutions exist.
 
 To address Mike's post:
 Your entire post is based on the wrong assumption that software is a
 product and not a service (of free information). hence, your business
 model is wrong.
 When the dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago, there was plenty of
 oxygen in the atmosphere, when that went down a notch they couldn't
 breath and got extinct and replaced by more efficient breathers
 (mammals). The fact is that the level of oxygen were reduced. the choice
 was to either breath more efficiently or die. same goes here - you need
 to adapt to the environment not the other way around. you want to make
 money from your software? than come up with a viable business model. Do
 not expect everyone to bend over for you. the free market isn't that
 much different from nature. you don't adapt, you get extinct.
 
 I'll say it one more time: "The customer is always right". that's the
 gist of it.


Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
"Unlike most human rights which prevent you from using force on people
except in extreme circumstances (people have a right to life, thus murder
is wrong, etc.), copyright permits you to use force on people. This is
backward. The burden of proof is on the pro-copyright side."

Can I bring up my list twist on the whole give versus take rights thing? 
Sure you can claim I don't have a right to control distribution of my 
work, but I can also claim you don't have the right to distribute work 
(not just mine). This works for the right to life. I can say you actually 
don't have a right to life, but no one has the right to take it away.

You brought up the fact that it really is not about rights and instead 
the end result. I have made my comments here: http://www.digitalmars.com/
webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=75199

"But the real world isn't ideal as it is right now. This is where you 
might be able to justify a copyright law. In the real world, if you 
devote several months to creating something, you have bills that need to 
be paid during those months."

Frankly I really don't care about the bills either. The true fundamental 
thing that controls whether I can spend time developing stuff for other 
people, is if I can get food on the table. And guess what, no matter the 
lack of copyright/patent laws, it still takes work to to produce food to 
put on the table. Society has change in a way where not everyone has to 
work producing the things they need, instead a few people do it and we 
just pay them. This lets them buy things they want so they can spend time 
producing the fundamentals.

"Another is to work on commission. You create a custom work for someone 
who pays you ahead of time to create something just for him. This is 
actually how I make money off my software right now in the real world; I 
write extremely boring, but highly specialized applications to specific
customers. They pay me for a custom fitted program, which I cannot 
control at all when it is done (the copyright is assigned to the 
customer.)"

You claim your goal is to have ideas flourish. Yet in this scenario you 
can't create your ideas, you create someone else's.

"That is how artists worked through most of history. It's a fairly good
model for various kinds of artists, including software developers. Even
without copyright, people will probably still want custom-tailored
solutions to their own problems and will be willing to pay for it."

Don't care if it is a good model, see my beef with ignoring rights.

"That result is the only thing that justifies copyright. It isn't about 
the rights of the creator - he doesn't have the right to use force on 
people under normal circumstances, so that argument is right out. It is 
about the end result."

Once again I hope you have read my beef with ignoring rights. I just 
don't see the end result as what justifies copyright. I'm not here to 
make a Utopia.

"In an ideal world, copyright would be an evil. It would do only harm and
no good. (As you can probably tell, the definition of the ideal world I'm
using here is simply one where bills /don't/ have to be paid. Other than
that difference, all things are equal with the real world. I strongly
believe that the real world could be adjusted to fit this definition in
the near future, if only we had the political will to make some changes.)"

You did so well there moving away from Utopia, but you're back. See my 
first comment. It ain't just the bills, its the food man, the food. Your 
ideal world just got harder to create.

"In the ideal world, the only restriction I'd place on 'intellectual
property'..."

Wait, stop right there. You don't have a right to place restrictions on 
something you created.


"In the real world, it serves a useful purpose - letting artists work full
time without selling originals or working on commission, permitting things
to be created that otherwise would be neglected in favor of the artist
paying his bills. Thus it is allowed to exist."

I think it should exist for a different reason.

Assuming the creator has kept his creation private. He is the only one to 
know of it. The creator has the rights to this creation. He is able to 
use it as he wishes. Would you not agree with this? I mean, no one knows 
he has it, so they can't take rights away.

So with total control of his new found creation, he creates a legal 
document that is agreed upon by using the his creation. He has every 
right to do so, no one knows he has it. His product now has a binding 
contract that takes affect when the product is used, and he lets his 
product loose into the wild. So what happened, how did his right to 
assign a legal document to his product get taken away?



 Aug 17 2008



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


Oh dear, I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread. I should
just have kept my focus on the compiler... oh well.


On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:22:05AM +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Can I bring up my list twist on the whole give versus take rights thing? 
 Sure you can claim I don't have a right to control distribution of my 
 work, but I can also claim you don't have the right to distribute work 
 (not just mine). This works for the right to life. I can say you actually 
 don't have a right to life, but no one has the right to take it away.


Fascinating. So if we accept this, what would give you the right to
distribute your own work? If I don't have it, why do you?


 I have made my comments here: http://www.digitalmars.com/
 webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=75199


It's getting late where I am, so I might have to reply to that later.


 Frankly I really don't care about the bills either. The true fundamental 
 thing that controls whether I can spend time developing stuff for other 
 people, is if I can get food on the table. 


Food is something I clumped in with bills.


 You claim your goal is to have ideas flourish. Yet in this scenario you 
 can't create your ideas, you create someone else's.


This is a way for an artist to pay his bills (buy food, etc.) by doing art.

If he can do enough work for other people, this gives him free time to
do his own work.

However, creating someone else's ideas is still having ideas flourish.

I'd love to create illustrated books, but I'm no good at drawing. If
I hired an illustrator to draw the pictures for me, those ideas would
still be out in the open. I didn't do it all myself, nor did the hired
illustrator, but that doesn't make the ideas of any less value to the
world.


 Once again I hope you have read my beef with ignoring rights. I just 
 don't see the end result as what justifies copyright. I'm not here to 
 make a Utopia.


Our ethical systems are incompatible. I define justification as being
dependent on the results in all cases. Thus, the only rights are those
that can be shown to bring good consequences. (Where, of course, good
must be defined separately as an axiom.)


 You did so well there moving away from Utopia, but you're back. See my 
 first comment. It ain't just the bills, its the food man, the food. Your 
 ideal world just got harder to create.


I could go into detail about why this isn't a deal-breaker, but it is
bed time so I must be brief: food is cheap. A person's food is rather
trivially paid for; a person could eat with less than $3000 / year.

It isn't difficult to make that much money (in the US anyway),
even without a steady job or any special qualifications at all.

Housing, on the other hand, is brutal, and still quite necessary.


 Wait, stop right there. You don't have a right to place restrictions on 
 something you created.


I could live with that, but I don't see it as ideal. Keeping names on
something is a courtesy* to the creator's ego - it makes the creator happy
to have done the work and might build up a good reputation, getting him a
job at a later time. This gives him some incentive to keep doing his work.

* Note my specific wording in the old post: do not misrepresent the source.
I don't propose that including the author's name be /required/, but I don't
think anyone should lie about it if asked, and should volunteer the
information anyway for the above reason. You can see one reason why I prefer
the zlib like license used in Phobos to the BSD license used in Tango here.
(Another reason there is a standard library exists in most every program
written in the language, so a requirement in its license is a requirement
in every license of every program distributed as a statically compiled
executable (which I prefer for end user convenience, just run it and go), which
I think is just simply a hassle.)


 Assuming the creator has kept his creation private. He is the only one to 
 know of it. The creator has the rights to this creation. He is able to 
 use it as he wishes. Would you not agree with this? I mean, no one knows 
 he has it, so they can't take rights away.


This doesn't mean he has the rights to his creation. This is saying he
has the rights to his /self/.

I'm not saying he must give up something he creates; in fact, I specifically
said the opposite at the top of my long post earlier today. A person
cannot be forced to divulge something.


 So with total control of his new found creation, he creates a legal 
 document that is agreed upon by using the his creation. 


Why is the creation of this document justified? We are going back to
out incompatible ethics again: I don't care about your rights, and you
don't care about my consequences, so we'd just be talking past each other.

I'll say it anyway though: laws are justified only because of the good
they bring society. If it does good, ok, I'll live with it. If not, well,
I'll live with it anyway since I don't want to get sued or go to jail, but
I won't like it.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net



 Aug 17 2008



  parent  Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com>  writes:


On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:34:04 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 Oh dear, I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread. I should
 just have kept my focus on the compiler... oh well.
 
 
 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 02:22:05AM +0000, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Can I bring up my list twist on the whole give versus take rights
 thing? Sure you can claim I don't have a right to control distribution
 of my work, but I can also claim you don't have the right to distribute
 work (not just mine). This works for the right to life. I can say you
 actually don't have a right to life, but no one has the right to take
 it away.


 
 Fascinating. So if we accept this, what would give you the right to
 distribute your own work? If I don't have it, why do you?
 

 I have made my comments here: http://www.digitalmars.com/
 webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=75199


 
 It's getting late where I am, so I might have to reply to that later.
 

 Frankly I really don't care about the bills either. The true
 fundamental thing that controls whether I can spend time developing
 stuff for other people, is if I can get food on the table.


 
 Food is something I clumped in with bills.
 

 You claim your goal is to have ideas flourish. Yet in this scenario you
 can't create your ideas, you create someone else's.


 
 This is a way for an artist to pay his bills (buy food, etc.) by doing
 art.
 
 If he can do enough work for other people, this gives him free time to
 do his own work.
 
 However, creating someone else's ideas is still having ideas flourish.
 
 I'd love to create illustrated books, but I'm no good at drawing. If I
 hired an illustrator to draw the pictures for me, those ideas would
 still be out in the open. I didn't do it all myself, nor did the hired
 illustrator, but that doesn't make the ideas of any less value to the
 world.
 

 Once again I hope you have read my beef with ignoring rights. I just
 don't see the end result as what justifies copyright. I'm not here to
 make a Utopia.


 
 Our ethical systems are incompatible. I define justification as being
 dependent on the results in all cases. Thus, the only rights are those
 that can be shown to bring good consequences. (Where, of course, good
 must be defined separately as an axiom.)
 

 You did so well there moving away from Utopia, but you're back. See my
 first comment. It ain't just the bills, its the food man, the food.
 Your ideal world just got harder to create.


 
 I could go into detail about why this isn't a deal-breaker, but it is
 bed time so I must be brief: food is cheap. A person's food is rather
 trivially paid for; a person could eat with less than $3000 / year.
 
 It isn't difficult to make that much money (in the US anyway), even
 without a steady job or any special qualifications at all.
 
 Housing, on the other hand, is brutal, and still quite necessary.
 

 Wait, stop right there. You don't have a right to place restrictions on
 something you created.


 
 I could live with that, but I don't see it as ideal. Keeping names on
 something is a courtesy* to the creator's ego - it makes the creator
 happy to have done the work and might build up a good reputation,
 getting him a job at a later time. This gives him some incentive to keep
 doing his work.
 
 * Note my specific wording in the old post: do not misrepresent the
 source. I don't propose that including the author's name be /required/,
 but I don't think anyone should lie about it if asked, and should
 volunteer the information anyway for the above reason. You can see one
 reason why I prefer the zlib like license used in Phobos to the BSD
 license used in Tango here. (Another reason there is a standard library
 exists in most every program written in the language, so a requirement
 in its license is a requirement in every license of every program
 distributed as a statically compiled executable (which I prefer for end
 user convenience, just run it and go), which I think is just simply a
 hassle.)
 

 Assuming the creator has kept his creation private. He is the only one
 to know of it. The creator has the rights to this creation. He is able
 to use it as he wishes. Would you not agree with this? I mean, no one
 knows he has it, so they can't take rights away.


 
 This doesn't mean he has the rights to his creation. This is saying he
 has the rights to his /self/.
 
 I'm not saying he must give up something he creates; in fact, I
 specifically said the opposite at the top of my long post earlier today.
 A person cannot be forced to divulge something.
 

 So with total control of his new found creation, he creates a legal
 document that is agreed upon by using the his creation.


 
 Why is the creation of this document justified? We are going back to out
 incompatible ethics again: I don't care about your rights, and you don't
 care about my consequences, so we'd just be talking past each other.
 
 I'll say it anyway though: laws are justified only because of the good
 they bring society. If it does good, ok, I'll live with it. If not,
 well, I'll live with it anyway since I don't want to get sued or go to
 jail, but I won't like it.


"Why is the creation of this document justified? We are going back to out 
incompatible ethics again: I don't care about your rights, and you don't 
care about my consequences, so we'd just be talking past each other."

Aye, see we now have reached the area where we disagree. I will quote 
myself here, so you will have no reason to read the other post.

"I should probably continue on why I feel individual rights are more
important than trying to help the world flourish with ideas and invention.
People are greedy. My goal tries to tailer to this in a way that will help
the flourishing of ideas and invention, yours just says it is a bad thing
and should be denied. I do not see it as a bad thing, just a fact and no
one should be punished for it (the free market can do that)."



 Aug 18 2008