The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Yigal Chripun]

Mike Parker wrote:
> 
> No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to
> determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest
> of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the
> thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if
> it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.

your train of thought here is going backwards. No one "suddenly" decided
to take away the right to control distribution from the creator.
That right never existed in the first place.

> 
> Copyright and property rights are different, but I do believe they can,
> and should, work in tandem. I don't agree with the current state of
> copyright law, but let me tell you how I think things /should/ be.
> 
> I think the idea of "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot is
> absurd. What we need is a law that explicitly defines a purchase of an
> infinitely copyable product as the purchase of "one unit" of that
> product. That particular unit is now your property. You can copy it to
> your heart's content, to CD or DVD, to multiple devices, or anywhere you
> want to use it. That's the right of property that protects the
> consumer's investment.

I agree with you that "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot
is absurd.

your idea of defining a "unit" is not implementable.

> 
> Copyright law comes into play be preventing you from distributing copies
> of your unit without the copyright owner's permission. No matter how
> many copies you make for your own personal use, only the owner of the
> copyright (most often the creator) gets to dictate the terms of
> distribution. You cannot sell your copies, nor can you give them away to
> your friends. For the duration of the copyright, the owner of the
> copyright has every right to profit from his creation without fear of
> competing with his own product. This right protects the investment of
> the creator.
> 
> Of course, people like to argue that they can do what they like with
> their property. If they want to sell it, they should be able to. I
> agree. If you want to give up your right to the unit you purchased and
> sell it to someone else, please do. But then you should be required to
> delete every copy you possess. From that point on, you no longer have
> any right to the unit. This is the same as selling your TV to someone else.
> 
> Once the copyright expires, then people can do what they want with it.
> This holds to the original spirit and intent of copyright law --
> allowing the creator to profit from his work while guaranteeing that it
> will eventually be freely available for all. The gives incentive for
> people to work at creating things full time.
> 
> Again, that's how I think things /should/ be. I do understand that
> reality is quite a bit different. Copyright law has been hijacked by
> corporate lobbyists to the extent that it no longer serves the purpose
> it was meant to. The concepts of IP and licensing have gotten so out of
> control (DRM) that they turn people away from what is fair and
> appropriate, instead contributing to a culture of "I can take what I
> want and you greedy corporate asses can stuff it". So we have an
> environment where producers and consumers are focused on "protecting"
> their own rights, but few are working to protect both. In the end, it's
> more than the greedy corporate asses who get hurt by it all.
> 
> At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some
> assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing
> illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the
> right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be
> paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so
> difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for
> his work as well? Or a musician?

no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
earn a living.
> 
> Some people argue that business models should change. They already are
> (apologies in advance for this being game-centric). Today, some PC game
> developers are no longer developing games for the PC. They view the
> consoles as safer territory. They are for now. You see a decline in the
> production of single player games. You see more and more games requiring
> online activation, or requiring you to be online to play. These are all
> models geared toward minimizing the damage a company suffers from
> piracy. As such, they limit the options of the end user.
> 
> My problem with piracy is not just a moral one, it's also a practical
> one. No one can say for sure where this will all lead. We could very
> well find ourselves in the Utopian paradise so many pirates spout off
> about to justify their actions, a world where people can get music,
> movies, books, and software freely while the creators can live off of
> the donations they receive from hordes of satisfied users (you'll excuse
> me if I hold some doubt that we'll see that result). But we could also
> find ourselves in a world where the independent creators, the garage
> bands and bedroom software developers, have gone the way of the dodo
> because they can't make enough to earn a living full time. A world where
> consumer rights are restricted and we have fewer options available to us
>  in how we access and use creative works.

let us take the role of an aspiring new musician and compare:
before the age of the internet:
we need to convince some record company representative to listen to our
demo and convince him that it's worthwhile to give us a contract (in
which we give almost all our rights to the company). the company decides
what music to push to the public based on little to none musical
interests (for example if we play classical music, we would create less
sales than Brittney spears and so her music would be preferred - it's
much easier to create hype and therefore sales amongst teenagers who
listen to pop rather than to convince adults to buy classical music CDs)
Now let's consider the current "Internet" way:
we can record music with home equipment and put it on our own site. we
can shoot a home video and put it on youtube, etc.. all with little
costs. we'll tell all our friends about our new site with our new cool
music, those wo like it will tell their friends, etc..
soon (if our music is liked by people) we could go and perform in pubs
and the like and people some people will come. after growing our fan
base we can also sell merchandise on our site, and get more people to go
to our concerts and pay for tickets..

what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
 achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
rather flourish.

Another example - current state of the legal system makes it harder for
two teams of OSS to work together since they are afraid of legal
consequences. (phobos and tango)
in a more free legal system we wouldn't find ourselves waiting for more
than a year since one author is afraid of taint and possibly getting
sued in the future duo to it. the absurd is that both projects provide
freely redistributable code and yet there are still fears of taint.

If you ever watched "sliders" than you'd probably seen the episode where
 they slid to a world with 85% of the population having law degrees. in
that world you had to provide a full health record and a signed and
legally approved note that you wouldn't sue just to buy a hamburger.