At 8:50 PM -0500 7/29/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
You can call whatever you want anything you want, but that doesn't make it
true. For instance, no, copyright infringement is NOT "taking something
without paying for it". Copyright infringement is duplicating "an expression
of an idea that is fixed in a medium" without the permission of the copyright
holder. Money doesn't enter into it.
PERMISSION !!! And that's the point of this entire thread.
You BUY a car, then society says you have permission to use it.
You STEAL a car, then society says that you don't have permission to use it.
Terms terms of "BUY" are expressly stated in no matter what you use,
including all of what's been discussed in this thread. The opposite
of BUYING is STEALING (excluding of course that you choose to do
neither).
Our entire legal system is built on allowing (granting permission)
certain actions and not allowing (not granting permission) other
actions.
You do not have permission to steal. And if someone has not granted
you the permission to use their whatever and you do use their
whatever, then that's stealing.
If copyright infringement were "taking something without paying for it", then
anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement unless
they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense.
No, it's not nonsense -- if the terms that Rasmus required were that
we had to send him a check, then that's what his terms would have
been -- why must I state the obvious?
Fortunately, for all of us, his terms did not require that we had to
send him a check so that's the reason why we don't have to send him a
check -- again, why must I state the obvious?
A great many people -- myself included but also the Creative Commons folks,
the FSF, many open source developers, and many others -- believe the current
system of copyright law to be fundamentally flawed.
You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't make your belief right.
Your position that copyright infringement is not stealing is
fundamentally flawed.
And, I doubt that the organizations you site actually agree with you.
Not that we shouldn't have copyright, but that the current form of copyright
is broken. A work restricted for an entire generation after the
original author is
dead?
What about descendants of the author? When anyone dies, their
descendants have a rightful claim on their parent's assets -- it been
that way since the dawn of mankind. Do you think you know better than
the practice of thousands of generations?
"Digital Restriction Management" software that makes even Fair Use a
felony? Retroactively extending copyright terms? Making experimentation
with either art or technology either prohibited or prohibitively expensive?
Yes, broken.
It's only broken for those who want to infringe on other's work
product without paying for it, which includes getting permission.
As many people in this thread have already stated, most artists/authors don't
actually benefit from this system.
Bullshit -- nobody has said that.
Additionally, artists/authors would certainly not benefit from your
point of view. Everything is open source with no responsibility to
the author -- it all up for grabs -- if you can get it, then woo ho
it's yours. Yeah, like that will work. Is that what you're
advocating? Because if you don't recognize copyright infringement as
stealing, then you are advocating stealing by calling it something
else.
The public certainly doesn't.
The public most certainly does -- they get the "best" product that
they can afford AND there is incentive for people to produce such
works for hire. The entertain industry is a prime example -- do you
think you would get the caliber of movies we do without incentive?
And that incentive includes copyright infringement laws which helps
stop people from STEALING their work.
Under your view, they do it for grins so that others raid freely and
without prejudice all other's works because it's not stealing. Is
that what you're supporting? Because if you don't recognize copyright
infringement as stealing, then you are supporting that practice.
I dare say that copyright infringement is not a mortal sin.
Stealing is! And calling it by any other name doesn't get around that fact.
At every point, I have pointed out what the law actually says, and why it says
it.
Again, bullshit. The spirit of the law is to prevent the stealing of
copyrighted material. Even the definition of "stealing" is defined as
taking another person property without permission and violating his
legal rights of ownership.
Now, you want to confuse the issue by saying "copyright infringement"
is duplicating something authored without the permission of the
copyright holder, but it's not stealing -- instead, it's violating
his rights of ownership, which has the same definition as does the
act of stealing.
Stealing: taking another person property without permission and
violating his legal rights of ownership.
Copyright infringement: taking another person property without
permission and violating his legal rights of ownership.
I don't see much difference.
And for that, I am accused of having no morality and values.
I don't think anyone has accused you of that, but saying what you
have, leaves us with the obvious conclusion that you don't recognize
copyright infringement as stealing -- and that does cast a long
shadow as to morality and values.
tedd
PS: I said I wouldn't get back into this argument, but your claims
are just absurd.
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
