1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
1:52 a.m.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 12:18:12 Dave Phillips wrote:
The point isn't that the freedoms wouldn't exist without it. As you say,
those freedoms can be protected by copyright law.
Obviously too, and often sadly, laws outlast their utility.
Isn't that the truth. I wonder if we need to start putting expiration dates on
our laws?
drew Roberts wrote:
Who does? But it is better to state his/their position accurately and then
disagree.
On Wednesday 30 June 2010 10:43:41 Dave Phillips
wrote:
Yeh, I should have thought twice about that remark. I know RMS's stand,
I've read that paper.
In all things GNU he is The Man, but I don't agree with him on everything Whatever you or I might believe about copyright
law, the FSF
clearly understands that it protects projects like Linux. Money is not
the only issue in the misappropriation of what is called intellectual
property. The FSF perceives stuff like Linux as intellectual property,
You really should not put words into their mouths. They are strongly
opposed to the term "intellectual property."
Well, at least RMS: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html entitled
to copyright protection by law, and they enforce action against
violators of the GPL, and with the same justification taken by the
greedy record companies. It's law, and it applies to the good and bad
alike.
Well, the freedoms they want for code would exist without copyright, but
since we have copyright, they use copyright to protect those freedoms.
(Their thinking from what I can tell.) My major
beef with current copyright is its terms of extension and renewability.
If that was all, it would be bad enough, but it gets worse.
1. Civil cases do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you
are "guilty" like criminal cases do.
2. No need to prove damages. You may actually be helped by the person's
unauthorized copying.
3. Statutory damages are not in line with sense. They seem to me to be
designed to inspire fear instead.
4. 1 to 3 is not enough, we need criminal penalties now for "sharing" level
copying between friends.
5. Automatic copyright even if the creator does not want that protection.
I have probably forgotten something as well.
I won't say that it guts the whole notion of the
public domain, but it
no longer functions to guarantee its replenishment. Thankfully CC and
other such licenses do ensure a rich public sources of
copyright-unencumbered works.
Indeed.
Best,
dp
all the best,
drew