[Gllug] Regarding priracy (sic)

[David Pashley]

chris.wareham at btopenworld.com said, and I quote:
> Before I signed up to the GLLUG list a friend and former subscriber
> commented on how "militant" the topics could get. The current discussion
> on "piracy" amply proves him right. What is really at question here is
> copyright law, and whether it serves any positive purpose. It also
> touches on deeper political concepts such as the degree of state control
> in society, individual responsiblity and collective responsiblity.
> 
> The moral justification of copyright is that without protection of
> intellectual works, there is no incentive to produce them. The incentive
> is most often money, be it for an individuals direct benefit or the
> benefit of a company. In the free software world the incentive can be
> money or kudos. Either way copyright law protects you. Those arguing for
> the unlimited right to duplicate software, music or even Coca-Cola(!)
> conclude that copyright is a bad thing based on a narrow, selfish
> criteria.
> 
> The anti-copyright mob claim that because they can copy something, that
> those who try and stop them are "profit grabbing bastards". Nope. Think
> about music, something that I have a considerable involvement in. I pay
> for my equipment. I pay for rehearsal time. I pay for recording and I
> get nothing for distribution. Now you come along and think "I've read
> that all data should be free, I'm unable or unwilling to satisfy my own
> musical needs but I can copy someone elses music". If I have explicitly
> said "you can copy my music freely", then that's not a problem. But what
> is happening with music is that people are copying it regardless of the
> creators wishes just because they can, and then coming up with ludicrous
> justifications.
> 
> The Coca-Cola example is bogus, as your making something from
> ingredients. The blank CDR that someone uses to pirate my music is *not*
> the raw ingredients of the music anymore than it's the raw creative
> energy that goes into coding a piece of software.
> 
> So in short, stop slagging off copyright law. If someone produces a
> piece of software and wants to sell it, then respect their decision or
> go and write your free alternative. The ability to copy the end result
> of someones hard work does not in itself justify your right to do so.
> 
> Now, can we get back to answering *technical* queries regarding Linux
> and free software and perhaps setup an alternative Chat list for the
> anarcho-student type wastes of bandwidth.
> 
Sadly copyright is a fundamental part of Free Software as it is
copyright law that we use to stop nasty people taking our work and
making money from it without any benefits to us. I think that copyright
is useful and I wouldn't want to be without it. 

A more important question is "Does current copyright law provide what it
was designed for?" I believe that this is no. Copyright was designed to
improve innovation by providing an incentive to producers to make works.
They were given a time limited say on how that work was used and copied.
After which, it became public domain and other people could use that
work to improve on it and produce more works. (This is fairly similar to
the idea behind patents, but do not confuse the two)

In recent decades this idea has been lost to the idea that companies can
make more money if they lock up their ideas and prevent anyone else from
using them. The original copyright term in USA was 14 years, renewable
once. This has been extended repeatably until we hae the current
situation of 70 years from the death of the creator (or 100-150 or so
years from the date of creation in the case of a corporate produced
works).  These are roughly the same terms here. The laws and penalties
for copyright infringement have increased too. Copyright infringement
was a civil offense. Copyright holders would have to sue infringers.
Certainly in the USA, it is now a criminal offense. I won't go into the
problems that the DMCA has caused and the damage that the european
version (EUCD) will create.

Please don't believe that everyone here thinks that copyright is stupid
and should ignored. I believe that artists should be rewarded for their
efforts. I do have major issues with record companies, and with other
companies hording works for which they no longer gain any revenue, like
out of print books or deleted records. I believe that we should return
to much lower copyright terms. An interesting article can be found at
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1547223 where
they argue that copyright should be reduced 14 years renewable once in
return for allowing copyright holders to use the kind of DRM laws they
have been asking for.

-- 
David Pashley
david at davidpashley.com
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030305/26fb6a99/attachment.pgp>