(Remember everyone, I am not a lawyer. I am just expressing my understanding
of these issues.)
On Saturday 04 December 2004 09:02 pm, Jared Anderson wrote:
> Someone Said:
> >For instance, the GPL requires that if I use the licensed code as part of
> > my own work, I must release my work under the GPL. This is a control on
> > how people can use GPL'ed code based on copyright. Are you saying this
> > control should not be allowed? Why?
>
> I am saying that if I buy something, I own it. If I buy a copy of the
> Titanic, I should have every right to do whatever I want with my copy, edit
> it parts I don't like, record football over the lame movie, or use it as
> toilet paper.
You can do all those things. You can't make a copy and give it to your
neighbor. You can't make a copy and give it to people on a P2P network. As
soon as a copy you make leaves your control and you still retain a copy, you
are infringing copyright.
> The GPL is a different beast. I don't believe the GPL attempts to control
> how I use the software, just the source code. With open source software, I
> never become the owner of anything (besides a smile). ;)
GPL restrictions kick in as soon as you provide the software to another
person. You see, it allows you to do the things you can't do with the copy
of the Titanic. What is does not allow is for you to incorporate GPL'ed code
into your program and keep the code closed. Copyright gives the author the
power to both allow copying and prevent closing the code. That's where the
control is.
> Nor would they be in business without air conditioning (in phx, anyway),
> should the electric company's rates be determined by how many people are
> enjoying the cool air since they are providing the electricity?
The rates are determined by how much the customer uses. If I have more people
in the house, I use more electricity to cool the place. But this does not
apply. Electricity or cool air is not a copyrightable work so things such as
licensing make no sense when talking about them.
> So, if I had a mixed tape of songs I recorded off the radio, I could freely
> share copies with my friends?
No. You can record it. You can make copies for your own use (gray area).
You cannot give that copy, for a fee or not, to another person if you retain
a copy for yourself. Copyright is the "right to make a copy" for
distribution. Fair use allows you to make copies for your own consumption.
> How about if my neighbor plays his new CD
> real loud throughout the neighborhood, can I legally record those
> sound-waves?
I don't know if that violates any copyright laws. The RIAA might complain to
your neighbor about it being a public performace or something, if the police
don't get there first. :^)
> I somewhat disagree. I could buy blank CD-Rs much cheaper than the 15-20
> dollar music CD. Distributing is not exactly what I would call giving
> somebody a mixed tape for Christmas (or whatever ya'll celebrate). :a)
Giving somebody a mixed tape IS distributing. You may want to tell yourself
different but I woud call that an act of copyright infringement. The cost of
blank or recorded CDs has nothing to do with determining copyright
infringement.
> Have you ever been to a public library without a copy machine? But books
> still sell. When you have finished reading a text book and sell it to
> another or give it away, must you destroy your notes as well?
Libraries have a special exception written in the law. Copies for educational
and academic purposes are allowed, up to certain limits. Your notes are
yours and are not a derivative work of the book in question. Ever heard of
"Cliff Notes?"
> I believe those with good products, ideas, or inventions will be rewarded
> regardless of copyright laws (or Kazaa) if what they offer is truly unique
> and superior.
I agree to some extent. The market likes good stuff and votes with dollars.
> It's not that I think we should eliminate copyright laws by
> any means, but I think the IP laws are flawed, inconsistent and too often
> stretched and abused.
I agree with this but I don't see disregard of the law, just because it is
"stupid" is the right place to stand. If I can justify disregard of
copyright when I want a movie without paying for it, how could I justly
express anger at a SCO-like company that takes GPL code for their product
without releasing the source back to the community? That would be
hypocritical.
> I think society evolves how it wishes, and
> regardless of what the RIAA wants, they will have to evolve too if they
> wish to survive.
I want the RIAA to change it's business too. I do that by not purchasing new
music from RIAA members. AND by not sharing music without a license. Then,
they cannot cry victum from filesharers but will be forced to change because
of the problems in their business model. And I get to keep the moral high
ground.
Alan
PS Boy, this turned into a long discussion! I think I have said all I can say
about it. I hope everyone else is not too bored by it. ;^)
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)