Re: Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!
"Bob" <[email protected]> Tue, 27 May 2008 15:29:09 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <50872E9AFD7C4ABB84104A25FED4FF79@Cripple> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0066765567== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0161_01C8C00E.68450CD0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C8C00E.68450CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Crosbie Fitch" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created = conte nt providers, beware! >> From: Tom Hubina >> To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take = >> all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my=20 >> products, =20 >=20 > Yes, and this is good. Anyone should be able to build upon published = works. >=20 >> call it my own,=20 >=20 > This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, fraud, a > violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be recognised as = the > authors of their works, etc. >=20 > Copyright does not protect attribution. >=20 >> charge for it,=20 >=20 > Of course. >=20 >> and have it be totally closed source. =20 >=20 > If you wished, but then without copyright there's no need to persuade = people > to provide the source code when they sell their software. Given = binaries > cost nothing to make or copy, there would be no market for binaries. = You'd > only get paid for selling source code - since no-one with their head = screwed > on would pay for software to be developed if the source code = representing > the work they'd paid for wasn't delivered to them. Inevitably, the = binary > would serve as a free demo for the software. >=20 >> Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the =20 >> images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without=20 >> any fear =20 >> and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the =20 >> initial purchase). >=20 > Yes, of course. Given the images have been released to the public, the > public are free to share and build upon public culture. >=20 > Without copyright, artists would obviously be careful to ensure they'd = been > adequately compensated for their work prior to releasing it. >=20 >> Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items=20 >> cease to be property. >=20 > Yes. However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction > privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright, it = just > means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of preventing = the > owners of copies from making further copies or derivatives. >=20 > Intellectual work still remains property, otherwise you can't sell it. >=20 >> As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime. >=20 > Not at all. Intellectual works are highly valuable and to be paid for, = and > any theft punished with appropriate restitution. Copyright is about = having a > monopoly and prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of = intellectual > works and prosecuting their theft. >=20 >> If someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be =20 >> charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be=20 >> able to =20 >> do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen. = >> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for =20 >> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it. =20 >> The original artist would get ZERO compensation. >=20 > I quite agree. But again, copyright is not about securing IP against = theft, > but about preventing people from making copies of the IP they've = purchased. >=20 >> That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are =20 >> suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can = >> get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with =20 >> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the =20 >> amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording =20 >> industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted =20 >> directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to =20 >> the masses without ever paying the original artist anything. >=20 > If you are classifying the restoration of liberty and an emancipated = public > as damage, then this is a strange way of looking at things. >=20 > As for corporations exploiting smaller artists without giving them = fair > compensation, many would say this is the situation with copyright. The > recent US Orphan Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively = allowing > corporations to ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'. >=20 >> The more =20 >> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course =20 >> this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn = =20 >> a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively = >> until everything has been sucked dry. >=20 > So without the monopolies that copyright provides them, you feel > corporations would suddenly make colossal profits? >=20 > If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been abolished = already, > instead of the corporations' lobbying for the introduction of ever = more > draconian reinforcement. >=20 >> Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal =20 >> response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos. =20 >> When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money =20 >> (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by =20 >> performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere. =20 >> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game=20 >> entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work. >=20 > I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically. >=20 >> Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and = >> all future progress would stall. >=20 > Because copyright became unviable and was abolished, or because there = was no > system of checks and balances? >=20 >> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing = with =20 >> your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only = >> exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP =20 >> laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license = =20 >> folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems. >=20 > Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that = copyright > and patent removes from free software developers, without copyright = and > patent there is no need for the GPL. >=20 > It would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy we > needed a law that suspended that freedom. Three hundred years ago be damned. How many artistic works were produced = three hundred years ago? More than that, from that small body of work, = how many of the authors were able to support themselves on the income = form this heady, intellectual sort of work? Yeah, practically zero. The = creation of copyright, was, as you have repeatedly stated, in an era of = expensive publishing, and therefore has served a class of middle-man = business owners for the majority of the last 300 years. Things definitly are changing in the digital age. I personally don't = focus on the proliferation of "piracy" in the last decade or two so much = as the rapid decrease in publishing expenses, not in the matter of = duplication but in all areas of production. I studied (computer aided) = design in college back in the early 90s, and even then there was a great = deal of mechanical work involved in pre-press and printing that has = since evaporated -- there is practically no technical knowhow, much less = physical expense, to any of those tasks today. This means that = publishers are the dodo facing extinction as more and more authors come = to realize they don't need them. All of a sudden, Copyright is directly = serving authors in the movement to break away from the parasitic = industry of publishers! Copyright laws probably do need to be stripped of aspects that have = already been added to serve the unique purposes of incorporated = publishers, but it is nonetheless empowering for authors. The notion = that public has "liberty" to claim anyone's creative work without = recompense solely on the basis of the ability to lay hands upon it is = truly unethical, and at the same time counter to the good of society (if = you consider growth of creative production a good thing). Diffusing the = problem of intellectual property value that authors rightfully earn, not = just in their immediate labour but in the great deal of study and = expense necessary to the learning of these sophisticated crafts, by = pointing judgemental fingers at the middlemen tasked with reproduction, = marketing and distribution, is a deceptive tactic. >> I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively = =20 >> flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of =20 >> working to fix the problems is asinine. >=20 > I'm suggesting that their ineffectiveness will soon become so obvious, = that > the needless prosecutions that continue in the name of their = enforcement > should be stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition. >=20 > However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently functional = and > are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try and = change your > mind. >=20 > I'm talking to those who are beginning to notice that 'something is = rotten > in the state of Denmark', and are wondering if anyone's been working = on > solutions... The fact that you seek only to sway the undecided doesn't say much for = the validity of your argument. If anything such a claim belies a lack of = confidence in your position. I've got a few books on the subject of = propaganda (dating back to Schopenhauer) that identify fence-sitters as = the most receptive to emotional appeal and hyperbole. ;) Mind, I have no fear of Copyright being abolished. It is a fantasy = scenario. Even if I agreed with you that Copyright is rotten to the = core, it would be a matter best pursued in increments, and ultimately = settled in compromise. Law is not painted in broad strokes. ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C8C00E.68450CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6001.18023" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: "Crosbie Fitch" <</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To: <</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:28 = PM</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Subject: Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill = passed the=20 house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><BR><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>> From: Tom Hubina<BR>>> = To be clear -=20 no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take = <BR>>> all of=20 the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my <BR>>>=20 products, <BR>> <BR>> Yes, and this is good. Anyone should = be able=20 to build upon published works.<BR>> <BR>>> call it my own, = <BR>>=20 <BR>> This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, = fraud,=20 a<BR>> violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be = recognised as=20 the<BR>> authors of their works, etc.<BR>> <BR>> Copyright does = not=20 protect attribution.<BR>> <BR>>> charge for it, <BR>> = <BR>> Of=20 course.<BR>> <BR>>> and have it be totally closed source. = <BR>> <BR>> If you wished, but then without copyright there's no = need to=20 persuade people<BR>> to provide the source code when they sell their=20 software. Given binaries<BR>> cost nothing to make or copy, there = would be no=20 market for binaries. You'd<BR>> only get paid for selling source code = - since=20 no-one with their head screwed<BR>> on would pay for software to be = developed=20 if the source code representing<BR>> the work they'd paid for wasn't=20 delivered to them. Inevitably, the binary<BR>> would serve as a free = demo for=20 the software.<BR>> <BR>>> Without copyright, someone using one = of your=20 sites could lift the <BR>>> images from the web site, use = it, resell=20 it, whatever without <BR>>> any fear <BR>>> and = without paying=20 the artist who created the work (not even the <BR>>> initial = purchase).<BR>> <BR>> Yes, of course. Given the images have been = released=20 to the public, the<BR>> public are free to share and build upon = public=20 culture.<BR>> <BR>> Without copyright, artists would obviously be = careful=20 to ensure they'd been<BR>> adequately compensated for their work = prior to=20 releasing it.<BR>> <BR>>> Without ownership of the images / IP = /=20 whatever the items <BR>>> cease to be property.<BR>> <BR>> = Yes.=20 However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction<BR>> = privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright, it=20 just<BR>> means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of=20 preventing the<BR>> owners of copies from making further copies or=20 derivatives.<BR>> <BR>> Intellectual work still remains property,=20 otherwise you can't sell it.<BR>> <BR>>> As such, theft is = meaningless=20 and no longer a crime.<BR>> <BR>> Not at all. Intellectual works = are=20 highly valuable and to be paid for, and<BR>> any theft punished with=20 appropriate restitution. Copyright is about having a<BR>> monopoly = and=20 prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of intellectual<BR>> = works and=20 prosecuting their theft.<BR>> <BR>>> If someone steals your = images /=20 art off your computer they might be <BR>>> charged for the = act of=20 hacking your system, but they would be <BR>>> able to = <BR>>>=20 do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've = stolen. =20 <BR>>> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the = internet=20 for <BR>>> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone = could do=20 about it. <BR>>> The original artist would get ZERO=20 compensation.<BR>> <BR>> I quite agree. But again, copyright is = not about=20 securing IP against theft,<BR>> but about preventing people from = making=20 copies of the IP they've purchased.<BR>> <BR>>> That is just a = trite=20 example ... imagine when big corporations are <BR>>> = suddenly given=20 unfettered access to anything and everything they can <BR>>> = get=20 their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with =20 <BR>>> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared = to=20 the <BR>>> amount of damage that corporations could do. = Imagine the=20 recording <BR>>> industry being able to take the work of = smaller=20 artists, lifted <BR>>> directly from their web site, package = it,=20 market it, and sell it to <BR>>> the masses without ever = paying the=20 original artist anything.<BR>> <BR>> If you are classifying the=20 restoration of liberty and an emancipated public<BR>> as damage, then = this is=20 a strange way of looking at things.<BR>> <BR>> As for corporations = exploiting smaller artists without giving them fair<BR>> = compensation, many=20 would say this is the situation with copyright. The<BR>> recent US = Orphan=20 Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively allowing<BR>> = corporations to=20 ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'.<BR>> <BR>>> The = more =20 <BR>>> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of = course <BR>>> this kind of activity is ultimately self = destructive,=20 but it can turn <BR>>> a quick profit with minimal = investment so it=20 would be done massively <BR>>> until everything has been = sucked=20 dry.<BR>> <BR>> So without the monopolies that copyright provides = them,=20 you feel<BR>> corporations would suddenly make colossal = profits?<BR>>=20 <BR>> If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been = abolished=20 already,<BR>> instead of the corporations' lobbying for the = introduction of=20 ever more<BR>> draconian reinforcement.<BR>> <BR>>> Without = a system=20 of checks and balances and a reasonable legal <BR>>> = response to=20 people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos. = <BR>>> When=20 there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money = <BR>>>=20 (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by = <BR>>>=20 performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere. =20 <BR>>> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game = <BR>>>=20 entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work.<BR>> <BR>> I = agree,=20 but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically.<BR>> <BR>>> = Innovation and=20 creativity would all but stop and the digital age and <BR>>> = all=20 future progress would stall.<BR>> <BR>> Because copyright became = unviable=20 and was abolished, or because there was no<BR>> system of checks and=20 balances?<BR>> <BR>>> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL = or even=20 what you're doing with <BR>>> your sites are going to be the = downfall of everything. They can only <BR>>> exist because = they have=20 the protections that copyright and other IP <BR>>> laws = provide=20 them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license = <BR>>>=20 folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.<BR>> = <BR>>=20 Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that=20 copyright<BR>> and patent removes from free software developers, = without=20 copyright and<BR>> patent there is no need for the GPL.<BR>> = <BR>> It=20 would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy = we<BR>>=20 needed a law that suspended that freedom.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Three hundred years ago be damned. How = many=20 artistic works were produced three hundred years ago? More than that, = from that=20 small body of work, how many of the authors were able to support = themselves on=20 the income form this heady, intellectual sort of work? Yeah, practically = zero.=20 The creation of copyright, was, as you have repeatedly stated, in an era = of=20 expensive publishing, and therefore has served a class of middle-man = business=20 owners for the majority of the last 300 years.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Things definitly are changing in the = digital age. I=20 personally don't focus on the proliferation of "piracy" in the last = decade or=20 two so much as the rapid decrease in publishing expenses, not in the = matter of=20 duplication but in all areas of production. I studied (computer = aided)=20 design in college back in the early 90s, and even then there was a great = deal of=20 mechanical work involved in pre-press and printing that has since = evaporated --=20 there is practically no technical knowhow, much less physical expense, = to any of=20 those tasks today. This means that publishers are the dodo facing = extinction as=20 more and more authors come to realize they don't need them. All of a = sudden,=20 Copyright <EM>is</EM> directly serving authors in the movement to break = away=20 from the parasitic industry of publishers!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Copyright laws probably = do need to be=20 stripped of aspects that have already been added to serve the unique = purposes of=20 incorporated publishers, but it is nonetheless empowering for authors. = The=20 notion that public has "liberty" to claim anyone's creative work = without=20 recompense solely on the basis of the ability to lay hands upon = it is truly=20 unethical, and at the same time counter to the good of society (if = you=20 consider growth of creative production a good thing). Diffusing the = problem of=20 intellectual property <EM><STRONG>value</STRONG></EM> that authors=20 rightfully <STRONG><EM>earn</EM></STRONG>, not just in their=20 immediate labour but in the great deal of study and expense = necessary to=20 the learning of these sophisticated crafts, by pointing judgemental = fingers at the middlemen tasked with reproduction, marketing and=20 distribution, is a deceptive tactic.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>> I'm also not suggesting = that=20 Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively <BR>>> flawed ... = they are=20 ... but throwing them out entirely instead of <BR>>> working = to fix=20 the problems is asinine.<BR>> <BR>> I'm suggesting that their=20 ineffectiveness will soon become so obvious, that<BR>> the needless=20 prosecutions that continue in the name of their enforcement<BR>> = should be=20 stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition.<BR>> = <BR>>=20 However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently functional=20 and<BR>> are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try = and=20 change your<BR>> mind.<BR>> <BR>> I'm talking to those who are=20 beginning to notice that 'something is rotten<BR>> in the state of = Denmark',=20 and are wondering if anyone's been working on<BR>>=20 solutions...<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> </DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The fact that you seek only to = sway the=20 undecided doesn't say much for the validity of your argument. = If=20 anything such a claim belies a lack of confidence in your position. I've = got a=20 few books on the subject of propaganda (dating back to Schopenhauer) = that=20 identify fence-sitters as the most receptive to emotional appeal and = hyperbole.=20 ;)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mind, I have no fear of Copyright being = abolished.=20 It is a fantasy scenario. Even if I agreed with you that Copyright is = rotten to=20 the core, it would be a matter best pursued in increments, and = ultimately=20 settled in compromise. Law is not painted in broad=20 strokes.</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0161_01C8C00E.68450CD0-- --===============0066765567== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ --===============0066765567== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Gamedevlists-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557 --===============0066765567==--