RE: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

> Am Don, 2002-06-13 um 16.06 schrieb Patrik Stridvall:
> 
> > First of all it is important to note that copyright is not at all
> > treated as normal property. There are such things as fair use
> > and first sale that limits copyright. Futhermore copyright doesn't
> > extend to fact, ideas, methods etc at all.
> 
> You are talking a lot about copyright, and seem to think you have
> understood it into the last detail ... I would like to remind you that
> copyright is vastly different among different countries.

I'm quite aware that copyright differs slightly from country to country
and no I don't believe that I know everything about copyright.

However what I meantion above like fair use, first sale and that copyright
doesn't extend to facts, ideas, methods etc is essentially true in all
intresting countries AFAICS. 

Sure there are slight differences. However as far as the GPL is concerned
I don't think there are any relevant differences except in fringe cases.

> Furthermore the copyright legislation(s) that are in force now have
> their origin in a world without copy machines, CD burners, and the
> internet. 

True. But as far as the GPL is concerned this is not very intresting.
The GPL is above the scope of copyright and most of what you meantion
above and below have very little to do with that. What you are
talking about mostly concern itself with enforcement and prevention
and lifetime of copyright.
 
> The big players have realized this and are trying to react by 
> enforcing
> a more restrictive copyright legislation. They are pursuing this in
> their very own interest. Consumers will not benefit from these changes
> in legislation at all; rather, they'll suffer substantial losses.

Agreed. However not nessarily more restrictive as much the scope of
copyright is concerned with is the sole thing the GPL is concerned about.

The issue you are talking about here is the concern about prevention
of copyright infringement and to some extend about the enforcement of it.
 
> The consequence is hypocrisy. On the one hand, you still can't legally
> play a DVD you have legally purchased on a Linux box. 

This have never been tried. Especially not in Europe.
The DeCSS trial in the US wasn't really about this issue,
if it had the outcome might have been different.

> On the 
> other hand
> (at least here in Germany), the PC magazines, except for the 
> 2 or 3 most
> serious ones, come with headlines like "The best tools against copy
> protection in the Internet" or "How you can copy every DVD" 
> almost every
> week - these headlines seem to boost their sales. Politicians and
> businessmen lament about copyright violations in public. In private
> life, I sometimes find it difficult to explain to people that 
> I _don't_
> want them to burn me that CD of theirs that I also like. 
> Interestingly,
> people who are grown up with free software often seem to have more
> respect for proprietary licenses than Windows-only people, 
> many of whom
> are "warez" collectors - not only kids, also very serious family
> fathers.

This is also a slightly different issue. The big issue is
not likely not that common people disagree with the scope of
copyright but rather that like in the case of speed limits
most people agree in principle but they still violate them...

So nothing intresting concerning the GPL here either.
 
> IMHO, this shows that the big players are moving in the wrong 
> direction.
> In a world with almost unlimited resources for information 
> sharing, the
> copyright legislation must be changed drastically to _allow_ that
> sharing. Everything else is fighting against reality. 

I see your point. But you must realize that there are,
very simplified, two different type of products
that are copyrighted.

(1) Entertainment products like books, music, movies, games etc
(2) Productivity products like Word, Excel, Access and friends.
    But not nessarily limited to computer software.

As for (1), yes I agree that it will probably be nessasary to do
something radically about it. These type of products are usually meant
for common people and if common people will not respect copyright there
is not much that can be done. However I don't really see this a huge
loss. If number of books, music, movies, games etc produce becomes
less if doesn't nessarily follow that people will be less happy.
Most that are produced in this area is crap anyway so good riddance.
Even a total removal of copyright for entertainment products are not
likely to hurt that much. Not that I'm suggesting it mind you.

As for (2). Well since they are productive applications they will by
definition produce some value to their users otherwise they wouldn't
be used or was used by mistake. So obviously there exists resources
to pay for the products in some meaning. So the big question how we
optimize "the world" so that the worthwhile productive applications
are produce and people that might benefit uses them so the total
resources produces in the world is maximized.

> If you so wish,
> the GPL was a very early attempt to bend the existing 
> copyright in a way
> that acknowledges that. 

I disagree. The GPL is just a suggestion on how to
(by force) organize part of society in order to maximize
the benefits to society. Whether this works in another matter.

The comparison to communism is quite intresting.
Communism also tried (by force) to origanize society
to maxmize the benefits to society. It failed miserably.

But before its failure the threat of communism led in most
western european countries to the rise of the social democratic
movement which later led to other parties adopting the modern
welfare state which manages to function largely without force.

In some abstract meaning I think you can draw the following conclusion:
GPL is comparable to communism in the same way that (non-viral)
open source is comparable to the modern wellfare society. 

So what do I wish to say by this.

First of I do NOT say that GPL == "communism" just than the same
flawed ideas appear among the supporters of the GPL.

Secondly ...

> Perhaps not the ideal solution, but 
> very modern
> in asserting that "copyright" and "intellectual property" are
> essentially terms of the past that provide benefit only to small group
> of companies who are powerful enough to enforce these rights against
> others.

... like communism pointed out the unfairness is society and proposed
a solution so does the GPL. However I predict that while the pointed
out problem is correct (like for communism) the GPL will fail to
provide the solution. But (non-viral) open source will solve the
problem in a similar the way the mordern welfare state solved
the problems.

OK. Some might disagree that the modern welfare state indeed solve
all the problem communism pointed out. To wish I say, well, all
problems are simply not solvable, sometimes you just have to choose
what is important.