FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-02-2012, 11:17 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
> This is dogma.

It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
makes the publishers his "masters".

> There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
> material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
> equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.

Do as you will. The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.
You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).

> Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
> released under a FLOSS license?

It is evidently feasible to not read at all. I'm sure you have
neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87r4ro993v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87r4ro993v.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 11:54 PM
Doug
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 08/02/2012 11:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Celejar<celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:50:37 -0500
John Hasler<jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:


Celejar writes:

...so just because the marginal cost of duplication is zero, why is is
unreasonable for it to charge per copy?

It is entirely reasonable for them to charge whatever they see fit for
copies they make, but why should your "producers" be able to charge for
copies other people make from copies those people own when the producers
incur no costs and none of their property is involved? If the producers
don't want me to make copies of the copies they sell me they can refrain
from selling to me or condition the sale on contractual terms that limit
what copying I can do. Why should I be forbidden by statute to create
copies of objects that I own?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.

The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
about "intellectual property" which, if I am understanding correctly
(and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
8-track...Then on CD. Or, what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
it was out on VHS, then LaserDisc, then DVD, now Blu-ray. If it is
about the intellectual property, why do I have to buy the *same* IP
every time the industry decides to change formats? In theory, if IP
is the item with cost associated with it, if I have paid for it once,
I should have a right to it regardless of what format it is in.

It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
cooked...Okay, now it is on a plate, so that is an extra charge, and
so forth.

Am I wrong here? (I'm not saying they'll change, just that it is a
specious argument)
--b



If you want to copy your beta-max recording to a blu-ray disk
for your own use, that's fair usage, and no violation of the
copyright. However, if you SELL the copy (and keep the
original) that's a violation for which you could be prosecuted.
You would be making money off of somebody else's work, and
that's a definite no-no!

--doug

--
Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 501B131D.7040505@optonline.net">http://lists.debian.org/501B131D.7040505@optonline.net
 
Old 08-03-2012, 12:32 AM
Glenn English
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:17 PM, John Hasler wrote:

> It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
> makes the publishers his "masters".

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I wasn't thinking that
Disney is my master. I was thinking of lawyers and politicians --
the people who make our laws, and who run the police and jails.

You're right. I don't need Disney, but the people I was talking
about can be a real PITA...

However, Disney does have total control over things they own and
have created. Just like I do over stuff I create.

--
Glenn English
hand-wrapped from my Apple Mail




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5B3B64DA-F1CA-4202-B9F8-E97A1331FBD5@slsware.com">http://lists.debian.org/5B3B64DA-F1CA-4202-B9F8-E97A1331FBD5@slsware.com
 
Old 08-03-2012, 12:45 AM
Brad Alexander
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
>>
>> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
>> over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
>> reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
>> cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
>> who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
>
> The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
> small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
> creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
> to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> published. How many others did not make it?

Agreed. I remember the hype about Napster in the late 90s. They did a
study of how much the artist got from a $0.99 track. It turned out to
be 1/10,000 of a cent.

And there have been several cases where the labels have come down on
the artists for releasing their own music on the internets. One was
the Beastie Boys. They were threatened with legal action. The other
was the group of artists that made the megadownload video/music. BMG
was (illegally) going in to youtube and claiming copyright and pulling
the ad down.

--b


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKmZw+ZXkwomaHCivGQyx8437Hg-mZmRmGHTOygvV4+JqEXjzw@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKmZw+ZXkwomaHCivGQyx8437Hg-mZmRmGHTOygvV4+JqEXjzw@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-03-2012, 01:09 AM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:17:56 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Celejar writes:
> > This is dogma.
>
> It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
> makes the publishers his "masters".

Fair enough.

> > There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
> > material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
> > equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.
>
> Do as you will. The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.

Quite true.

> You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).

Agreed.

> > Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
> > released under a FLOSS license?
>
> It is evidently feasible to not read at all. I'm sure you have
> neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.

True.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120802210906.e5e93d35.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120802210906.e5e93d35.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-03-2012, 01:30 AM
Philip Ashmore
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 03/08/12 02:09, Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:17:56 -0500
John Hasler<jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:


Celejar writes:

This is dogma.


It's just advice to someone who seems to think that owning copyrights
makes the publishers his "masters".


Fair enough.


There is a great deal of software, and certainly other cultural
material (books, movies, music) out there which has no FLOSS
equivalent, and I don't have the time / skill to manufacture my own.


Do as you will. The point is, you don't actually _need_ that stuff.


Quite true.


You peruse it by choice (and so do I (except for the movies)).


Agreed.


Is it really reasonable to refuse to read all books that have not been
released under a FLOSS license?


It is evidently feasible to not read at all. I'm sure you have
neighbors and/or coworkers who are living example of that.


True.

Celejar

Ho hum.

I just have to wade in with one additional point.

Back in the day I remember when CD-ROMs were being promoted/released.

I think it was on Blue Peter.

They demonstrated how robust a medium it was by spreading marmalade
(it's like jam) on the thing, wiping it off and showing that it still
worked.


These days I don't dare look sideways at a CDs or DVDs in case they
catch a scratch.


I'm backing up my collection onto hard disk and I'm using a CD/DVD
repair kit, and I have to use it once or twice on those items I watch
more frequently, "oh gee, I must have watched that one a lot, out with
the repair kit".


This is all going to change once augmented reality really kicks in -
last time I checked you could still invite friends over to watch a movie
or listen to music.


Once "your place" becomes virtual, no copyright laws are being broken,
or am I wrong here?


Regards,
Philip Ashmore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 501B29C6.6000406@philipashmore.com">http://lists.debian.org/501B29C6.6000406@philipashmore.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 01:39 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:55:14 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
> >
> > Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
> > over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
> > reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
> > cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
> > who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
>
> The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
> small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
> creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered

So? If the creators choose to transfer some or all of their rights to
others, that's their right. They are perfectly free to retain all
rights and self-publish. As you note, this is vastly easier today then
it ever has been, due to the internet and the legal climate.

> to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> published. How many others did not make it?

Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators
couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest
(and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to
self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher
who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them?

> The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to
> publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content
> consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly
> proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and
> distributing it.

Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value
is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs,
they're free not to purchase the works.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807093954.f364cbd5.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807093954.f364cbd5.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 01:44 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:45:56 -0400
Brad Alexander <storm16@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jo, 02 aug 12, 09:41:59, Celejar wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here, as we're just disagreeing
> >> over irreducible first principles. I, and the law, think that it is
> >> reasonable and fair that the creator of certain types of intellectual /
> >> cultural artifacts should be entitled to some sort of restrictions on
> >> who can utilize and implement those ideas; you disagree.
> >
> > The creator? Sure! But the creators are rarely -- and mostly only in a
> > small proportion -- the beneficiaries of selling copies of their
> > creation. Also, as far as I know several works that are now considered
> > to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting
> > published. How many others did not make it?
>
> Agreed. I remember the hype about Napster in the late 90s. They did a
> study of how much the artist got from a $0.99 track. It turned out to
> be 1/10,000 of a cent.
>
> And there have been several cases where the labels have come down on
> the artists for releasing their own music on the internets. One was
> the Beastie Boys. They were threatened with legal action. The other
> was the group of artists that made the megadownload video/music. BMG
> was (illegally) going in to youtube and claiming copyright and pulling
> the ad down.

The artists are, and always have been, perfectly free to retain all
rights to their works and try to publish them themselves. It's entirely
their decision to sign away some or all rights to a publisher. To take
advantage of the publishers' advances (which, IIUC, are often never
recouped by the studios) and promotional investments and then, upon
success, to turn around and complain that they don't like the terms of
their contracts doesn't seem entirely fair.

I do know that the law does recognize that some contracts are
inherently unfair (in the US, contracts of adhesion, etc.), but in the
general case, I lean libertarian - if you don't like the terms of the
contract, don't sign it; either search for a better one, or strike out
on your own.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120807094457.72f71a30.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120807094457.72f71a30.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-07-2012, 02:23 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
> Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the
> legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the
> value is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their
> costs, they're free not to purchase the works.

They don't purchase the works: those are abstractions. They purchase
copies. Yes, this is nitpicking, but in this context the distinction is
important.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87zk66232h.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87zk66232h.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-07-2012, 02:34 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Celejar writes:
> ...I lean libertarian...

So do I, which is the basis of my criticism of copyright.

> ...if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign it...

Right. If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to
make additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they
agree not to do so.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vcgu22l0.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87vcgu22l0.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org