The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Yigal Chripun]

My major issue with what you wrote is this:
60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's
go even before that to the time when black people in America were
considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a
white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his
property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today,
you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the
law that black people where not really people and didn't have any
rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom
of information.
besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just
like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question
of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it
make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make
a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely
copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to
the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.

There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
distribution. The way it actually works is this:
a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc..
b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it.
c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me:
I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it
is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your
idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is
what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)

The above basic scheme was augmented by copyright/patent laws in the
following matter:
The state gives the creator a *limited* time-span of exclusivity from
the moment he told the world his idea or published his book/song/etc.
This is a trade-off designed to make it worthwhile for people to come up
with new ideas, invest their time in art, etc. I.e the public gives some
of its rights in order to gain more diversity of ideas and such.

Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about
evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer
from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical
for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his
hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you
can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website.
Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.

Another example would be music artists which distribute their music
freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people
listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live
performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized
this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the
contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the
more they earn.

When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in
Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site.
I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to
pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book
and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.

One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information
is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times
all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next
thing he'll burn will be people.

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> 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.