| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: pjlahaie_-at-_atlsci.com (Paul J.Y. Lahaie)
Date: 3 Feb 1999 11:13:28 -0500
Forwarded because I only sent the reply to Russell (accidentally)
- Paul
russell@flora.ottawa.on.ca wrote:
> a) The lack of access to that food. In the Information world that is
> what copyright does (Restricts access) and thus people who copyright their
> materials are considered theifs by Free Software people.
>
> b) The expense in terms of money to replace the food. In the
> Information World this is the justification used to try to convince us of
> the value of copyright, that it give people a way to ensure that they get
> paid for their intellectual works. I believe it is just one way, and not
> often the best way.
By this token, while you are away, you should let homeless people
use your
residence. After all, you aren't in need of it then. Therefore someone
else
could benefit from that warm roof while you are away.
> Information does not 'cost' the same amount that is 'charged' in a
> proprietary world (Much of the so-called costs are due to the extra costs
> associated with information restriction, licensing and policing). In the
> proprietary world there is also no true "Free Market Capitalism" as
> consumers do not have the freedom to choose the best value-add producer,
> just pay the arbitrary license fees to those who stole from the public
> realm by patenting/copyrighting some intellectual works.
You are looking at the current use of the patent system. That was
not the
intent of the patent system. Because it has been corrupted does not
mean the
idea behind it is broken. The patent system was put in place to prevent
trade
secrets. By patenting something, you agree to disclose the invention to
the
public for the right to have exclusive use for a predetermined period of
time.
If you use a trade secret and the company goes belly up, there are
chances
that the research that was kept secret may never be released. Which one
is better?
> > So basically, what you are implying is that if someone taps your line
> > it's fine.
>
> I haven't the slightest idea how you came to this conclusions. If my
> intended party is one person, then that is an invasion of privacy.
> Proprietary software restricts the 'form' in which someone has access to
> information, and what they can do with that information after they already
> have it. It does not at all relate to privacy and whether they get the
> information in the first place.
That's the idea of a license. It's expressing an idea to someone
and restricting
it's distribution. Just like when you talk to your lawyer about
personal matters,
he is NOT FREE to divulge that information to anyone else. (Same for
your doctor,
etc..). You said (and I quote):
" Eithor something is a secret, or it is not. If you publish your
poem to
your girlfriend, then it is obviously not a secret. And why do you want
to restrict access to that story for 'publication'? Maybe it's because
you want to make money off of it?"
Just because you publish something (wether it's a conversation, a
program, a diagnosis from your doctor) does not make it public.
> If you write a piece of software and give it to your friends, you are
> perfectly fine to do whatever you want with it including keeping it
> secret. Patents/Copyright are used to restrict information AFTER you have
> decided to not keep something secret. Heck, patents can be used to revoke
> access to information that people have already known and used for years
> (First to file allows for blatant theft of information).
Except in RMS' world, my friends can take that software, give it to
1000 people and I should have no say about it. One analogy, you wish to
get some kind of surgery
from your doctor, you tell him. Since he knows some of your friends, he
goes and
tells them. With that information, they can do and tell whomever they
like.
> Money very is a form of power and control over others. I don't know how
> I would convince you of this fact any more than I could convince someone
> of the existence of gravity.
It can be used that way, but the people who are controlled have the
choice to
not be under that control. Only in very extreme cases does it happen
that you
cannot escape control from someone's money and in those cases, you
usually have
recourse in the courts.
> As to getting off one's ass: I think getting paid for something you did
> in the past (Copyright) rather than getting paid for something you do in
> the present and will do in the future (CopyLeft) is very much a matter of
> who is lazy and who is not. I am not one to knock the concepts of Welfare
Except not everything can be pre-funded. You live in this cozy
world where
all the tools are available to make your work time-only. I live in a
world where
somethings haven't been done yet and the costs to implement them cannot
be born
by the organization that wants it. In your world, these programs have
to wait until
someone uses their spare time to do it. In my world, people take a
chance that
they can make money off it in the future and do it.
> as it does have it's place in a social context, but do consider
> Copyright/Patents to be the worst form of anti-Social welfare (Getting
> something for nothing, stealing from the commons) that exists in our
> society today.
Your view is closer to a socialist society. I don't see things that
way. I don't think socialism works for many reasons, just like
capitalism doesn't work either. You have to find the middle and I don't
see your view as being near the middle.
- Paul
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|