Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Serge Skorokhodov (216716244) Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 11:26 pm Gerry Quinn wrote: > In article , suralis-s@mtu-net.ru says... > >>Gerry Quinn wrote: >> >>>I have no difficulty thinking of cases in which it is >>>appropriate. But is there any point rehearsing the case for >>>copyright and patents here? Most people agree that there are >> >>Most people? I doubt that major media companies and software >>publishers comprise the majority of people:) > > > No, nor do they comprise the majority of people who think authors > should be paid for their work. > > >>>good reasons for having them, even if many disagree on the >>>extent and what they should be applied to. >> >>>>and it's not the case outside the US even nowdays (depends >>>>on the specific country though:). The real problem that >>>>(let's call it so) the freedom of knowledge threatens to >>>>specific buiseness schemas. That's simple. And those who >>>>benefit from existing buiseness schemas just attempt to >>>>maintain their profits at the expence of the rights people >>>>enjoy for ages. Do you repsect those who defends their >>>>profits at the expence of other's natural rights? Or do you >>>>defend your personal profits and just don't mind anybody >>>>else's rights? :) >>> >>>What you claim as natural rights, I don't see as such. >>> >> >>That means you consider the rights human kind has have for >>thousands of years as unnatural? What happened in the recent >>dozen of years then? > > > It's hundreds of years! Anyway, as societies grew more complex, > certain freedoms available to cavemen were eroded. In exchange, > opportunities unavailable to cavemen were created. Cavemen didn't have > CDs, so to talk about their natural rights in that context is > meaningless. > > >>>>It's definetaly both illigal and immoral to obtain unlicened >>>> copies of copyrighted material. Still we encounter pricing >>>>and fair use issues but it is a different story... :) >>> >>> >>>I'm not sure what you're arguing about if you think it's >>>immoral. Software patents only? >>> >> >>Not only. I consider immoral and detrimental any copyright or >>patents that last more that 20 years. Actually, I believe that >>this term must be less for most technological advancements nowadays. > > > That is the norm for patents. Copyright lasts longer because it > doesn't stop anyone else from creating something with a similar theme. > > >>Then I consider both immoral and detrimental any restrictions of >>studying (reverse ingeneering, disassembling etc.) software. > > > These restrictions are necessary to defend copyright. To make law and > then reject any means of enforcing it is pointless. It's like saying > murderers should have life sentences, but jails are immoral. (Okay, > that can work, but it means that murderers must hang instead.) > > >>I do believe that the US intellectual property law is aimed >>exclusevely on preventing fair competition. > > > What sort of fair competition? > > Say I write and publish a book - what fair competition is IP law > preventing? > It's just demagogism. IP laws have nothing to do with paying to the authors. IP legislature is about protecting profits of IP holders that aren't authors in most of the cases. Technology advances broke the business of such corporations in the same way as automobiles kill the carter's business. It's natural that they fight against it. It is less natural that you support them with such a rigor, IMHO:) As for books, there is no need for IP laws to prevent plagiarism. Plagiarism took place long before modern IP laws and was dealt more or less successfully. -- Serge .