Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : lilburne
Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 10:39 pm

David Golden wrote:

>>Oh yes that is an article written by someone that writes books which
>>are  copyrighted and write articles in magazines that are themselves
>>copyrighted. 
> 
> 
> And? If you disagree with copyright law (the author of the article
> mightn't; that's actually pretty irrelevant for his summary of what
> "value" means to him ?!),  you might still copyright everything you
> produce: you're not inconveniencing those who ignore copyrights, and
> you might even encourage disregard for unjust law if redistribution of
> your information is sufficiently desirable by people.


I've already shown that beyond the trite and obvious the article is 
nonsense.


> See also one person's answer to
> "Why is it not inconsistent to claim copyrights but still find copyright
> laws to be unethical and wrong?"
> at  
> http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/copying_primer.html
> 
> (Personally, I think it best to decide to let the fruits of those who
> would restrict others "wither on the vine", and am actually far more
> careful about NOT breaching copyright licenses than most people I
> know.)


Good for you.


>>So on what basis do we judge whether the price of his articles and
>>books are a rip-off? 
> 
> 
> Whether a price is a "rip-off" is subjective just as value is.
> The entire passage you quoted is about the ERROR of the idea of "trading
> value for value" that leads to perception of "rip-offs" and the idea
> it's somehow wrong to profit.
> 
> I  hold he should be free to ask whatever price he wants
> for a copy from him, the potential buyer free to decide whether it's
> worth paying him to obtain that copy. (I've even proposed it should
> probably be attribution, to give him incentive and advantage).


That is what happens now.


> I disagree with the special extra law to prevent people you've ALREADY
> "sold" a copy to making and redistributing further copies:  I haven't 
> argued against being able to contract to prevent further redistribution
> of information with a particular person you disclose information to -
> presumably you might charge much less for such disclosure accompanied
> by the establishment of such a contract, but you haven't really sold
> him a copy, you have interest preventing him doing whatever he might
> want with it. 
> 

That is what the copyright is about. The contract between you and the 
copyrighted software producer is that you don't fscking copy and 
redistribute it. If you don't like it get your software elsewhere or 
write it yourself.



> That is to quite different to there being extra statutory law creating
> general power to restrict copying and resdistribution as far as I'm
> concerned. 


Copyright did not come into being by Statutary law. The role that 
statutary law has played on copyright has been to limit it. Prior to 
statutory law the common law was that copyright is a natural right and 
creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be 
in regard to tangible and real property in perpetuity.


>>>The act of creation of a thing is NOT the thing being created. I
>>>don't deny either are potentially valuable, though.
> 
> 
>>In which case the act of copying is theft no?
> 
> 
> No.
> 

Apparently yes.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

.