tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post1421189018922273912..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: Sharing: Theft or Duty?Glyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-52298851494403068182010-09-27T13:18:36.474+00:002010-09-27T13:18:36.474+00:00@Zotz: maybe it's confused because the situati...@Zotz: maybe it's confused because the situation is confused. Some things are legal, some are illegal, and yes, I'm saying some things that are currently illegal should be legal.<br /><br />I'm not professing to have the answers, I just want to pose the question.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-20393849421385380252010-09-27T13:15:07.269+00:002010-09-27T13:15:07.269+00:00Well, what is and is not criminal depends on where...Well, what is and is not criminal depends on where and when you are talking about.<br /><br />Some of your post seems to be talking more of what is "right and wrong" and some that is "legal and illegal" and I think some of the confusion may be arising from that.<br /><br />So do we want to talk of what things should be like, what they are like, what some way they are like or what?<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />drewzotzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510111482279103861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-46166502415059668402010-09-27T13:08:33.823+00:002010-09-27T13:08:33.823+00:00@Zotz: I don't think I'm following here.
...@Zotz: I don't think I'm following here.<br /><br />I'm saying that *for proprietary, closed-source software*, selling large numbers of unauthorised copies for gain is essentially a criminal activity. I'm not saying selling large numbers of copies of free software is a problem, since obviously (to my readership) it's not.<br /><br />Maybe you're saying I don't make it clear that I'm talking about proprietary software?Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-63198017638385185412010-09-27T11:47:32.462+00:002010-09-27T11:47:32.462+00:00"Not allowing people to make personal copies ..."Not allowing people to make personal copies and share them for non-commercial use is, I believe, exactly like not allowing people to sell their books second-hand, or to give them away (note that I am not extending this to intentional commercial-scale copyright infringement, which is almost by definition criminal because conducted with the specific aim of depriving creators of their sales.)"<br /><br />A bit more of an explanation re my identi.ca post: http://identi.ca/conversation/52043732<br /><br />Consider Free Software. If you don't have the right to commercial activity it is not Free Software. So to in the Creative Commons world, the use of NC makes a work non-Free as per: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition<br /><br />So certainly, intentional commercial-scale copying, is not by definition unethical. At least according to a goodly number of people. Are we really looking at the law and what it currently is here or at what should be?<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />drewzotzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510111482279103861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-68352792419274142982010-09-27T06:15:03.210+00:002010-09-27T06:15:03.210+00:00What I mean is that his ethical view (on these iss...What I mean is that his ethical view (on these issues, at least) is formed from what the law says. In other words, if suddenly the law changed and copying software was legal, you can bank on the fact that he would then say there is nothing wrong with copying.<br /><br />Apply that to *actual* theft and it's absurd. If for some reason it suddenly became legal for me to take your bike, it doesn't change the fact that it's unethical for me to do so.<br /><br />Matt isn't taking an ethical stance here. He's paying lip-service when he says, "the wrong nature". He does this because his ethics regarding copying are wishy-washy. The pay-off though, is that wishy-washy ethics make it easy to take "pragmatic" stances. Without taking ethics seriously, you can toot the technical and economical benefits of "Open Source" while deriding people like Stallman.Peterhttp://gnuosphere.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-58767195615509186672010-09-26T19:17:45.307+00:002010-09-26T19:17:45.307+00:00@Crosbie: interesting points, as ever - thanks.@Crosbie: interesting points, as ever - thanks.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-66353197774417131572010-09-26T17:23:08.198+00:002010-09-26T17:23:08.198+00:00This is why we must defer to nature rather than de...This is why we must defer to nature rather than desire when determining what is ethical, i.e. the natural rights we're born with rather than the commercial privileges we might lobby for and be granted.<br /><br />There are still some in the free software movement who steadfastly believe in copyright as a fundamental right, that the GPL is thus a jolly good idea for those situations in which copyright gets in the way of sharing and building upon mankind's knowledge. Such people do not go further to question why a 'right' must be neutralised by license to facilitate collaborative software development.<br /><br />There is such a thing as natural intellectual property and a natural right to exclude others from it. For natural rights this has to be self evident. If you can naturally, physically prevent me making copies of your work (without invading my privacy) you have a natural right to prevent me doing so - irrespective of facile arguments that 'You still have a copy'. I cannot walk up to you, snatch your CD out of your hands, copy it, give it back and say "Thanks mate - don't look so miffed, you haven't lost anything, you still have a copy!" without violating your natural right, your natural power to exclude me from your possessions.<br /><br />Where things get confused is when the state grants additional powers, beyond natural ones, inevitably by annulling the equivalent natural power from everyone. Thus in 1710 Queen Anne annulled the right to copy in everyone in order to reserve this to create a monopoly for the exploitation of press (instituting the monopolies they had until then been able to nefariously achieve through their own brute force - and previous grants). The right to copy then becomes a privilege (you are then able to license anyone you like the permission to copy once again, as they were naturally able, and had a right to). This privilege must by definition arise in each original work (not being a copy), and so finds itself briefly in possession of the author before the press buys it from them for a pittance.<br /><br />So when you give someone a CD, it is now in their possession and they can naturally do anything with it they like, unless you have loaned it, in which case they need to give it back in good condition. That means the recipient of a CD has a natural right to copy it - since nothing naturally prevents them. Whoever covets the power to prevent them would need to have a crystal ball to detect copying, and a global army to arrest and punish them for doing so. Copyright grants such power (though being only superhuman rather than supernatural, it is rather ineffective these days, even when made global and draconian by ACTA).<br /><br />So, you can steal intellectual work (copies made via burglary), but you merely infringe a monopoly when you make copies of intellectual work you have purchased or been given - in this latter case you are actually reasserting your natural right and liberty, contrary to Queen Anne's edict.Crosbie Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06554471152790988479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-6531746259118870582010-09-26T15:13:47.656+00:002010-09-26T15:13:47.656+00:00@Peter: well, they may not be the case here, since...@Peter: well, they may not be the case here, since his argument is essentially in favour of ethics - with mine, implicitly, being unethical...Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-90362038001403233432010-09-26T13:48:07.431+00:002010-09-26T13:48:07.431+00:00"the wrong nature"
This doesn't sur..."the wrong nature"<br /><br />This doesn't surprise me. From what I can remember (back when I used to read his posts), he was a big "Open Source" advocate. And when I say "Open Source", I mean the hardcore religious OS zealot type. The kind of OS "advocate" that doesn't care a hoot about freedom but only cares about the economic and technical benefits "Open Source" offers. This type of extremism is often closely coupled with warped moral views on the ethics of sharing useful information.<br /><br />Those pragmatic extremists are an odd bunch. (Even I'm not sure if I'm being facetious here.)Peterhttp://gnuosphere.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com