The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0100, Jb wrote:
> I wish you'd put that paragraph first and then I wouldnt have spent 30 
> minutes responding to all your utopian copyright free wet dreams.
> 
> ;-)

Heh, yes, I do tend to ramble. (One reason why I generally lurk rather
than post...)

> 
> I do think you overstate what copyright actualy does. It doesnt prevent 
> sharing of ideas and information. It just prevent copying of (usualy) 
> artistic works.

The bits that make up that artistic work is information!

If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright
infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer,
so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.)

I'm not copying the work - I'm providing a detailed description
of a portion of it (its user interface).

If I write a piece of fan fiction starring Captain Kirk and the starship
Enterprise, I'm technically infringing on Paramount Picture's copyright,
since my book would be considered a derivative work of Star Trek.

That is the worst case - I would have copied no actual words, just the
abstract information of Kirk's characterisation. Yet, technically, the
law says I can't do that without Paramount's permission.


I'm sure that, at the very least, we can agree that several aspects of
copyright law are absurd, even if you accepted the rest of it.

But that is definitely information about the work that I cannot copy
under the law.


One could easily argue that transmitting something like source code
down the Internet is sending a very detailed description of the product
(product == the compiled executable) rather than copying the work.

I didn't copy the executable itself - I sent a detailed description of it.
This description just happens to be detailed enough for the compiler to create
a perfect copy from it.


The only difference between that description and a verbal description
of the program is the resolution of detail. In both cases, I am spreading
information about it.

> Actualy without copyright the chances of finding that library would be 
> greatly diminished. For a start if people want to they can already create 
> software and release with no restrictions. This option already exists.

Yes, indeed, and many people do (or something very close to no restrictions,
like the licenses in Phobos).

And there's an interesting question: why do people write software with
few restrictions now, when they could possibly make more money off
keeping it restricted? If copyright didn't exist, would those reasons
suddenly disappear? I say no:

> All that would happen if you killed copyright is the people who write and 
> release software in order to make a living would likely go out of business 
> and end up doing somthing else.

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of existing free software is written for the
author's own personal use (hence their generally poor user interfaces...).

This stuff wouldn't go away. The demand is still present.

Demand is what drives commercial software too. Demand for something like
tax software wouldn't disappear without copyright, so tax software shouldn't
disappear either.

The payment model would probably switch to pay in advance. Someone
(more likely a group than individuals) would hire developers to write
the software so they can use it for themselves. Everyone else would then
use it as a kind of collateral damage. Damage isn't a good word to use here,
since no one is getting hurt, but I can't think of a better term.

A similar example to the concept I have in mind is in politics. The United
States Navy patrols the oceans of the world to protect American trade and
national interests. In doing so, other countries get to benefit from this
too - fighting piracy (the kind on the seas) benefits other countries,
since those pirate ships would attack anyone from any country and do their
damage, not just Americans. The other countries get this benefit without
them having to pay for it. Of course, again, the US doesn't do this for
benefit of other nations - it does it for itself. But, regardless, the job
is still done and everyone can still benefit from it.

Software would become similar. Everyone looks out for his own interests,
and other people can come along for the free ride without hurting anyone.

> So the idea that art / software production would flourish without copyright 
> is plain false, it's so false it's almost absurd.

How then do you explain the wealth of art that was created before copyright
was around? Or the vast amounts of free (or close to free) software on the
Web now?

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net