The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Jesse Phillips]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:12:23 +0200, downs wrote:

> Mike Parker wrote:
>> bobef wrote:
>>> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>>>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
>>>>> letter
>>>>> of the
>>>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
>>>>>> every day are
>>>>>> lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
>>>>>> copyrighted
>>>>>> material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and
>>>>>> damaging.
>>>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also
>>>>> in the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for
>>>>> the language).
>>>>>
>>>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>>>> whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong. you
>>>>> sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
>>>>> since there's nothing to steal.
>>>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>>>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent
>>>> the concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
>>>> "steal,"
>>>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
>>>> right
>>>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you
>>>> do or should have that right.
>>>>
>>> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
>>> also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
>>> "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
>>> It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
>>> copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
>>> is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
>>> problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have
>> no respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software.
>> He'll be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't
>> deserve
>>  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods
>>  enjoy.
> 
> Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".
> 
>> He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you dash his
>> dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out and
>> find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!
> 
> There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional
> arguments. Guess which yours is.
> 
> 
>> Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't
>> give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something
>> someone else has created without the creator's permission.
> 
> This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).
> 
> The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a
> certain period of time. It does not exist "by default".
> 
>> I'm sure we
>> can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
>> you for it, then I am well within my right to do so.
> 
> Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT.
> THE SAME. THING.
> 
>> How is it that when my
>> creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?
> 
> Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds
> of times.
> 
>> I've heard
>> this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to
>> me. True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing
>> a physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the
>> time and effort I put into it.
> 
> Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your
> physical goods?
> 
>> It takes a heck of a lot longer to
>> develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
>> chair.
> 
> Maybe for cheap chairs.
> 
>> So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same right as
>> a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide if my
>> product should be freely available?
>> 
> See above.
> 
>> And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap.
>> Software is not information. It's a product.
> 
> Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively
> novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I
> cannot point at a source for that claim).

Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). 
(Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." 
Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, 
or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that 
no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So 
really where did we go with this?)

Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of 
information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) 
and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way 
(scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely 
distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because 
I still have the original? And now back to chairs.

Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items 
and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt 
and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any 
point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost 
when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that 
chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would 
claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it 
then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a 
Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But 
then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his 
chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be 
for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost 
money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, 
thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand 
thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest 
bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change 
pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled 
(*cough* DRM *cough*).

This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for 
distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to 
physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I 
wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else 
digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or 
required labor to copy.

I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right 
to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal 
contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed 
to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending 
on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some 
legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end-
user. 

The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no 
longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making 
money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have 
some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).

The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is 
giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to 
use after the sale.

The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it 
with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair 
in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use 
copies are fine.

On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the 
end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my 
own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I 
don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to 
prove that it really was all my work).

To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the 
creator, how copy for distribution is handled.