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, 12:50 AM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

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?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, though. Now that the marginal
cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die. It was only really
practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
that enforcement was feasible.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fw869kwy.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87fw869kwy.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 01:15 AM
Doug
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On 08/01/2012 08:50 PM, John Hasler 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?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, though. Now that the marginal
cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die. It was only really
practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
that enforcement was feasible.

Not only does copyright not die, as long as Disney is in business,
copyrights will extend to eternity!

--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: 5019D4B7.5040501@optonline.net">http://lists.debian.org/5019D4B7.5040501@optonline.net
 
Old 08-02-2012, 01:41 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

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.

> Doesn't really matter in the long run, though. Now that the marginal
> cost of copying is zero copyright is going to die. It was only really
> practical when large-scale copying was an industrial enterprise such
> that enforcement was feasible.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120802094159.752b0674.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120802094159.752b0674.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 08-02-2012, 03:00 PM
Brad Alexander
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKmZw+Z8ujq4Pt+SeQpaOKDMmxauhsYFzeGrO4atHA=vQ4zj6 A@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 08-02-2012, 03:31 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Brad Alexander writes:
> 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*.

"Intellectual property" is a right established by statute. In the case
of copyright it is the exclusive right to create copies of a protected
work. Under copyright law a copy is a _tangible object_.

> ...why do I have to buy the *same* IP every time the industry decides
> to change formats?

You didn't buy the IP. That would mean that you acquired the exclusive
right to make copies. You bought a _copy_: a tangible thing. The
copyright owner retained the right to create more copies[1].

It's all about copies and the creation and distribution thereof. Copies
are _things_. That includes a copy on your hard disk: the disk is a
tangible thing and the copy is that portion of it on which the copy
resides. IP is about abstract rights. When you acquire a copy of a
work you do not acquire any of those rights: just the thing. Quit
thinking about copies as immaterial abstractions.



[1] The copyright owner may or may not have granted you some limited
rights to make copies under some limited circumstances as part of a
contract entered into when you purchased the copy from them. In
addition, under some circumstances the USA copyright statute grants you
limited rights to make copies.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87zk6d8g5i.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87zk6d8g5i.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 03:39 PM
Slavko
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Ahoj,

Dňa Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:00:26 -0400 Brad Alexander <storm16@gmail.com>
nap*sal:

> 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.

Nice examples :-)

But consider this: the right about "intelectual property" is in mean
"money property". It gives to one the right to take money from others. And
moneys are not tool (as are somebody telling), but money are target in
todays world.

When i was young (before cca 25-30 years), somebody tell me that money are
bridge between work (job) and food. It is still right, but no everybody
know this...

regards

--
Slavko
http://slavino.sk
 
Old 08-02-2012, 06:44 PM
Glenn English
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:

> 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.

I claim there's a lot more to it than that. And "intellectual property"
is a misnomer.

> 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.

why do I have to buy the *same* IP
>
> every time the industry decides to change formats?

In my case, let's consider Dave Brubeck's album where they were playing
around with time signatures. I don't remember the name, but it was the one
with "Take Five" on it. When I bought it in my teens, the only format was
vinyl disc. Then a few years later, it came out on CD. I bought that too. A
friend of mine brought out the same argument you do.

"How much would you pay," I asked him, "for a 1:1 dub of the 15 ips master tape
of that disk? No surface noise, no turntable rumble, less wow & flutter, lower
harmonic distortion, better frequency response, etc."

"Oh, yeah," he said.

If I buy an audio cassette of something, I've paid for the content. It seems
reasonable to me that I have the right to make a copy of what I bought with
machinery I own. But if I don't have access to a higher quality version of the
music, and/or I want somebody else to make the copy, I'm going to have to pay
something for it.

> what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
> which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
> it was out on VHS,

You could still watch it in BetaMax until your BM player died. And VHS barely worked
anyway. You were better off with the BetaMax.

> then LaserDisc,

LaserDisc was a better format than either of the tape formats. And you still had
your BetaMax version to watch.

> then DVD, now Blu-ray.

Both technical improvements (if you don't mind the DRM and FBI warnings). And you
didn't have to buy either if you didn't want to. But if you did, you got a better
version of the movie (longer lasting medium, higher resolution, takes up less space
in your living room, etc.)

Now, there oughta be a way to pay for just the improvements if you have an earlier
version already, but our masters have decided not to provide such. It would be a
real mess to implement anyway, and it likely wouldn't turn out any cheaper, what with
all the bookkeeping and stuff...

> 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.

Is Safeway a better cook than you are? Then pay them for the labor and utilities and
tools needed to cook it. Is your friend a better cook? Then invite him/her over to
share the dinner. Otherwise, cook it yourself.

> Am I wrong here?

A little bit. The issue isn't named well enough to see the whole picture.

Am I wrong here?

--
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: 4C6C053C-9873-4E61-8E8C-BB98EC8195D7@slsware.com">http://lists.debian.org/4C6C053C-9873-4E61-8E8C-BB98EC8195D7@slsware.com
 
Old 08-02-2012, 07:25 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

Glenn writes:
> If I buy an audio cassette of something, I've paid for the content.

No. You've paid for the audio cassette.

> It seems reasonable to me that I have the right to make a copy of what
> I bought with machinery I own.

I agree. The law does not. Making copies of the "work" [1] is the
exclusive right of the copyright owner.

> ...but our masters have decided not to provide such.

They are not your masters. You don't need their stuff. Make your own
or get it from people who share your values.



[1] A "work", in copyright law, is the abstraction that a copy is a
physical embodiment of.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vch185b1.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87vch185b1.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 09:55 PM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

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?

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.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 08-02-2012, 10:50 PM
Celejar
 
Default Intelectual Property Law

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:25:22 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

...

> They are not your masters. You don't need their stuff. Make your own
> or get it from people who share your values.

This is dogma. 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.
What does that mean, anyway? Is it really reasonable to refuse to read
all books that have not been released under a FLOSS license?

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120802185036.61c02aa1.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120802185036.61c02aa1.celejar@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 PM.

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