On Tuesday 21 February 2006 16:14, Rob wrote: >On Tue February 21 2006 15:08, Peter Bessman wrote: >> The fact that it's illegal to sell your vote does not prove >> that contracts can be morally wrong. > >Not that the 'shrink-wrap licenses' to which Fons was referring >are even accepted as contracts in many venues. I certainly >never had a contract with, say, Syntrillian in the bad old days >when I would download a pirated copy of Cool Edit Pro; the text >of whatever EULA they used was never even included with the >illicit version. The GPL itself is also not a contract; it's a >license without which you can't distribute the program except by >violating copyright. I beg your pardon? GPL'd code I can make cd's of and give them away on street corners, or sell them for a couple of bucks apiece, its absolutely, totally, 100% LEGAL in every sense of the word. I can modify it for MY uses as much as I want, but any patches I want to pass along to anyone else based on my work on that GPL'd code ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE GPL, this is the so-called viral nature of the GPL. I can live with that rather nicely and have since about 1994 and my Amiga days. >The respect argument is specious as well; I certainly don't >respect Wal-Mart when I'm buying a new toothbrush or whatever. >(And since I've paid for it, I'm perfectly within my rights to >share that toothbrush with anyone, though I'd probably rather >not.) > >So we're back to copyright violation, not breach of contract. >And I stand by my original statement. I kinda like copyright >now that there's enough software covered under the GPL to make >it inconvenient for the people who fought so hard to extend >copyright to cover computer software in the first place. But I strongly disagree with disney's being able to buy whatever laws he needed to keep Mickey from becoming PD. For one companies benefit, millions of others are damaged. Copyright laws as they existed the year I was born (1934) are as fair and non-abusive as could be. Today, don't be funny, because it certainly isn't. >Nonetheless, those who have attempted to use copyright to turn >imaginary property (based on infinite reproducibility) into real >property (based on scarcity) are wrong, no matter how much it >might benefit them to do so. No they are not wrong. Were I an artist making fantasticly populer music, I'd damned sure want to be paid a royalty on every copy made, regardless of how its made. Until the copyright ran out. The one single most broken thing about copyright is that its for sale to the highest bidder. I should be able to contract with someone to publish 100,000 copies minimum, over a period of say 5 years, at the end if which that contract is fini and they would have no further rights to make or ship from stock another copy if the contract has expired, the copyright itself never having left MY possession. >One million copies of notepad.exe >have the exact same value in the real world as a single copy, >regardless of how much sweat some peon in Redmond shed during >its initial development. And that goes for emacs, Finder, Doom >3, Donkey Kong, In A Silent Way, Oliver Twist, Citizen Kane and >the Mona Lisa too. As long as you are enumerating these, add the provision 'per copy' and it makes perfect sense. But to say that 1 million copies of Citizen Kane are worth the same as 1, when the million will weigh close to that in pounds, and will have killed 100,000 trees to print them doesn't evalute the worth of the trees, nor of shipping that weight to market. That peon in Redmond still needs to eat, albeit I don't agree with bill taking 99.99% of the sale as commission. So the peon is a kept slave in fact. >I don't want to hear the "but no one can make any money unless we >treat copies like physical objects" line anymore either. If I >went into business selling a new kind of wrenches, with a >shrink-wrap agreement on the outside requiring that they were >only to be used by the purchaser, and then went broke because >people started sharing their wrenches left and right despite my >legal threats, I would deserve to be broke for pursuing such an >unrealistic business plan. See also: CueCat. Excelent example. I still have one of those things around here someplace. But I don't care enough to go find it... >Rob -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
