Piracy and Unconventional Wisdom
Should be required reading for all developers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 by Tarkus | Discussion: WinCustomize News
This is not a new article, but it's new to me, and it remains very relevant.
It's refreshing because the writer is a software developer, and yet he actually dissects the issue of piracy with logic, instead of emotion. That's rare. Heck, it's rare for anyone, let alone a software developer.
Perhaps there's nothing groundbreaking here, but I've never seen the issue so thoroughly and well laid out.
I wish every developer would read this with an open mind.
It's refreshing because the writer is a software developer, and yet he actually dissects the issue of piracy with logic, instead of emotion. That's rare. Heck, it's rare for anyone, let alone a software developer.
Perhaps there's nothing groundbreaking here, but I've never seen the issue so thoroughly and well laid out.
I wish every developer would read this with an open mind.
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Jafo
Reply #22 Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:40 AM
Reply #22 Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:40 AM
Manipulate words...or manipulate numbers.....
You ARE aware that mathematics is referred to as a language?
If you cannot see the analogy...stay with your numbers, because english expression/comprehension is clearly a lesser talent...
Ka806
Reply #23 Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:26 AM
Reply #23 Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:26 AM
ummmm mathematics may be a language but it is only a language because it is an abstraction of preexsisting conditions which have always exsisted or are the creation of gasp!! other mathematical procedures.
ummm and creativity is considered the highest form of intelligence in the psychology field. The words that are used now and spoken by us were created by us for the motive of communication.
gravity will always be -9.8 m/s2. The language part of mathematics uses the decimal system and the meters per second. We can say that gravity is 4535345 googloseds per vigdos but gravity still has that rate of falling on earth. The decimal system we use today is simply for abstraction purposes.
now if shakespeare said "to be or not to be" I could say that is like saying "dfad dfse dfdx eeid" ...... but noone would accept that..... because the language that shakespeare uses was the product of man.
you cant claim IP on the rate gravity falls at. But you could with shakespeare because the languages we speak is just to facilitate communication.
ummm and creativity is considered the highest form of intelligence in the psychology field. The words that are used now and spoken by us were created by us for the motive of communication.
gravity will always be -9.8 m/s2. The language part of mathematics uses the decimal system and the meters per second. We can say that gravity is 4535345 googloseds per vigdos but gravity still has that rate of falling on earth. The decimal system we use today is simply for abstraction purposes.
now if shakespeare said "to be or not to be" I could say that is like saying "dfad dfse dfdx eeid" ...... but noone would accept that..... because the language that shakespeare uses was the product of man.
you cant claim IP on the rate gravity falls at. But you could with shakespeare because the languages we speak is just to facilitate communication.
Doomgaze
Reply #24 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:51 AM
Use it/Modify it/Enhance it to your own liking w/o redistributing it.
Not just 'use' it.
Check your EULA's again Jafo, you're getting lazy.
Reply #24 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:51 AM
| You purchase rights to 'use' it. |
Use it/Modify it/Enhance it to your own liking w/o redistributing it.
Not just 'use' it.
Check your EULA's again Jafo, you're getting lazy.
Jafo
Reply #25 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:24 AM
Reply #25 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:24 AM
| Check your EULA's again Jafo, you're getting lazy. |
Yes...getting 'lazy'.
In Australia, for example, you purchase rights to the PLAYING of the CD for personal enjoyment. You DO NOT purchase rights to any form of reproduction, copy, backup in any form or method or medium what-so-ever. There is NO 'fair use' allowance for making a copy on cassette, etc, nor has there EVER been one.
There WILL BE one...as and when the US Free Trade Treaty comes into 'force'....as Australia will then adopt the US 'Interpretation', and not that of the UK.
Generally, though, people dismiss Oz-Rules as the country is insignificant...and most of the Napster/Kazaa geeks here are quasi-American wannabes who rue the fact that Oz is NOT the 51st state.
EULAs are often quite different....the only thing that remains consistent is.....
No-one really bothers to read them....
Ka806
Reply #26 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:40 AM
I assume that only applies to music cds. Cause if you are saying that applies to software , you are just flat out wrong. In the software world, everything revolves more around licensing then general copyright laws.
I will tell you anywhere in the world if you purchase red-hat, you certainly are not purchasing rights to use red-hat.
Reply #26 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:40 AM
| Yes...getting 'lazy'. In Australia, for example, you purchase rights to the PLAYING of the CD for personal enjoyment. You DO NOT purchase rights to any form of reproduction, copy, backup in any form or method or medium what-so-ever. There is NO 'fair use' allowance for making a copy on cassette, etc, nor has there EVER been one. There WILL BE one...as and when the US Free Trade Treaty comes into 'force'....as Australia will then adopt the US 'Interpretation', and not that of the UK. Generally, though, people dismiss Oz-Rules as the country is insignificant...and most of the Napster/Kazaa geeks here are quasi-American wannabes who rue the fact that Oz is NOT the 51st state. EULAs are often quite different....the only thing that remains consistent is..... No-one really bothers to read them.... |
I assume that only applies to music cds. Cause if you are saying that applies to software , you are just flat out wrong. In the software world, everything revolves more around licensing then general copyright laws.
I will tell you anywhere in the world if you purchase red-hat, you certainly are not purchasing rights to use red-hat.
Ka806
Reply #27 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:41 AM
I assume that only applies to music cds. Cause if you are saying that applies to software , you are just flat out wrong. In the software world, everything revolves more around licensing then general copyright laws detailed by a specific country.
I will tell you anywhere in the world if you purchase red-hat, you certainly are not purchasing rights to use red-hat, No matter where you live.
Reply #27 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:41 AM
| Yes...getting 'lazy'. In Australia, for example, you purchase rights to the PLAYING of the CD for personal enjoyment. You DO NOT purchase rights to any form of reproduction, copy, backup in any form or method or medium what-so-ever. There is NO 'fair use' allowance for making a copy on cassette, etc, nor has there EVER been one. There WILL BE one...as and when the US Free Trade Treaty comes into 'force'....as Australia will then adopt the US 'Interpretation', and not that of the UK. Generally, though, people dismiss Oz-Rules as the country is insignificant...and most of the Napster/Kazaa geeks here are quasi-American wannabes who rue the fact that Oz is NOT the 51st state. EULAs are often quite different....the only thing that remains consistent is..... No-one really bothers to read them.... |
I assume that only applies to music cds. Cause if you are saying that applies to software , you are just flat out wrong. In the software world, everything revolves more around licensing then general copyright laws detailed by a specific country.
I will tell you anywhere in the world if you purchase red-hat, you certainly are not purchasing rights to use red-hat, No matter where you live.
MountainDragon
Reply #28 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:18 PM
The words were created by man, but so was the code - perhaps the difference lies in the main purpose of the creation. The words (as in a poem) are primarily an expression of experience, meant for the inspiration and appreciation of others (art). The code is written primarily to be a tool to accomplish a task. Both could be done with an additional aim of providing a return on the efforts invested (payment). The problem is how to maintain a fair system whereby people are compensated for their efforts.
The waters get muddied somewhat by the fact that artistic works are sometimes also tools (polictal art, a beautifully desiged automobile, etc.), and tools are sometimes quite artful.
Perhaps not, but one could create a machine based on that and other principles, and then obtain a patent for it. This, IMO, is analogous to what we do with software code. We may rely on universal mathematical principles, but it is in the tools we craft using those principles that the values lies.
While it is true that words are created by "Man", it is also true for a tool which uses specific techniques to accomplish a task. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the question of what is a specific technique. I don't think I could get a patent on a chair, unless I can show that it does the job in a new and unique way. Perhaps the same should go for software. There are a lot of programs out there, that, like chairs with different finishes and fabrics, simply rehash the same old techniques, but with a slightly different appearance or arrangement of parts.
This doesn't quite address the main question of piracy, though. Even if I'm selling chairs that are just like all the others, I would not like to see someone with a "matter replicator" (ala Star Trek) begin making copies of my chairs to distribute to potential customers. (Yes, potential customers. I do not really buy the argument that someone who cannot, or will not, pay for my chair, but wants it anyway, is not a potential customer and is thus entitled to it for free! Perhaps the government should begin distributing "Sofware Stamps" for the less fortunate users.
) I think there are two levels of ownership involved in the software arena: First, the level of tool design, which should be covered by something like patent law, and second the crafting of a particular instance of a tool, which is covered at this point (as far as I know) by copyright.
The case of a particular "piece" of software is only different from the case of a particular chair in that it is more difficult to replicate the chair.
So, you're saying that other patentable machines/processes are not based on math?
Reply #28 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:18 PM
| All in all...you cant sit there and say you created this code......just that you wrote this code. But you can say you created a poem because the words in the poem were created by man, and as such its nothing that will progress over time on its own accord through reserch. |
The words were created by man, but so was the code - perhaps the difference lies in the main purpose of the creation. The words (as in a poem) are primarily an expression of experience, meant for the inspiration and appreciation of others (art). The code is written primarily to be a tool to accomplish a task. Both could be done with an additional aim of providing a return on the efforts invested (payment). The problem is how to maintain a fair system whereby people are compensated for their efforts.
The waters get muddied somewhat by the fact that artistic works are sometimes also tools (polictal art, a beautifully desiged automobile, etc.), and tools are sometimes quite artful.
| you cant claim IP on the rate gravity falls at. |
Perhaps not, but one could create a machine based on that and other principles, and then obtain a patent for it. This, IMO, is analogous to what we do with software code. We may rely on universal mathematical principles, but it is in the tools we craft using those principles that the values lies.
While it is true that words are created by "Man", it is also true for a tool which uses specific techniques to accomplish a task. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the question of what is a specific technique. I don't think I could get a patent on a chair, unless I can show that it does the job in a new and unique way. Perhaps the same should go for software. There are a lot of programs out there, that, like chairs with different finishes and fabrics, simply rehash the same old techniques, but with a slightly different appearance or arrangement of parts.
This doesn't quite address the main question of piracy, though. Even if I'm selling chairs that are just like all the others, I would not like to see someone with a "matter replicator" (ala Star Trek) begin making copies of my chairs to distribute to potential customers. (Yes, potential customers. I do not really buy the argument that someone who cannot, or will not, pay for my chair, but wants it anyway, is not a potential customer and is thus entitled to it for free! Perhaps the government should begin distributing "Sofware Stamps" for the less fortunate users.
) I think there are two levels of ownership involved in the software arena: First, the level of tool design, which should be covered by something like patent law, and second the crafting of a particular instance of a tool, which is covered at this point (as far as I know) by copyright. The case of a particular "piece" of software is only different from the case of a particular chair in that it is more difficult to replicate the chair.
| The advancement of software is something that happens without patents.....because its math and it will progess over time. |
So, you're saying that other patentable machines/processes are not based on math?
Ka806
Reply #29 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:30 PM
Code is written to solve a problem, not to accomplish a task. This is one of the first things I learned as a software engineer. You are presented with a problem and you manipulate mathimatical algorithms to address that problem. It makes no sense to compensate someone for the code they wrote, but rather the engineering process to create a piece of software. Should the guy that discover stacks and queues in c++ get compensated everytime someone uses them. Hell no. So why should microsoft get paid for windows. The reason we should give microsoft the money is not because of the code, but because of the meetings that took place to make sure the code was good, and the effort putting into testing the code, and the process that trasnsformed the requirements into the specification, and into the design for that code, heck I would probably put something for the comments and even the variable/constant names.
I think you missed the point here. Im not saying that code is based on math. Im saying code IS math. Progamming languages either are created by other programming lanuages or binay, code is in essence 1s and 0s. There is no tangable good with regards to code, except the cd and the manuals (which are other reasons we should give software corporations their money) code is something that is one of a kind. Of course bridges and other engineering achievements are based on mathematical concepts like calculus, but you dont actually built it with 1s, and 0s.
You could not do something like linux when it comes to bridges. Linux in itself severely strike down many arguments that intellectual property can be attributed to code. Watching a self-sufficient community flourish, and surpass some of the richest companies of the world simply by allowing science to carry along their advancement is simply amazing.
Code is in a league of its own. Can you think of one product that is sold out there that is a representation of mathematics, not only an application. Im pretty sure I cant.
Reply #29 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:30 PM
| The words were created by man, but so was the code - perhaps the difference lies in the main purpose of the creation. The words (as in a poem) are primarily an expression of experience, meant for the inspiration and appreciation of others (art). The code is written primarily to be a tool to accomplish a task. Both could be done with an additional aim of providing a return on the efforts invested (payment). The problem is how to maintain a fair system whereby people are compensated for their efforts. The waters get muddied somewhat by the fact that artistic works are sometimes also tools (polictal art, a beautifully desiged automobile, etc.), and tools are sometimes quite artful. |
Code is written to solve a problem, not to accomplish a task. This is one of the first things I learned as a software engineer. You are presented with a problem and you manipulate mathimatical algorithms to address that problem. It makes no sense to compensate someone for the code they wrote, but rather the engineering process to create a piece of software. Should the guy that discover stacks and queues in c++ get compensated everytime someone uses them. Hell no. So why should microsoft get paid for windows. The reason we should give microsoft the money is not because of the code, but because of the meetings that took place to make sure the code was good, and the effort putting into testing the code, and the process that trasnsformed the requirements into the specification, and into the design for that code, heck I would probably put something for the comments and even the variable/constant names.
| Perhaps not, but one could create a machine based on that and other principles, and then obtain a patent for it. This, IMO, is analogous to what we do with software code. We may rely on universal mathematical principles, but it is in the tools we craft using those principles that the values lies. While it is true that words are created by "Man", it is also true for a tool which uses specific techniques to accomplish a task. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the question of what is a specific technique. I don't think I could get a patent on a chair, unless I can show that it does the job in a new and unique way. Perhaps the same should go for software. There are a lot of programs out there, that, like chairs with different finishes and fabrics, simply rehash the same old techniques, but with a slightly different appearance or arrangement of parts. This doesn't quite address the main question of piracy, though. Even if I'm selling chairs that are just like all the others, I would not like to see someone with a "matter replicator" (ala Star Trek) begin making copies of my chairs to distribute to potential customers. (Yes, potential customers. I do not really buy the argument that someone who cannot, or will not, pay for my chair, but wants it anyway, is not a potential customer and is thus entitled to it for free! Perhaps the government should begin distributing "Sofware Stamps" for the less fortunate users. ) I think there are two levels of ownership involved in the software arena: First, the level of tool design, which should be covered by something like patent law, and second the crafting of a particular instance of a tool, which is covered at this point (as far as I know) by copyright. The case of a particular "piece" of software is only different from the case of a particular chair in that it is more difficult to replicate the chair. |
So, you're saying that other patentable machines/processes are not based on math? |
I think you missed the point here. Im not saying that code is based on math. Im saying code IS math. Progamming languages either are created by other programming lanuages or binay, code is in essence 1s and 0s. There is no tangable good with regards to code, except the cd and the manuals (which are other reasons we should give software corporations their money) code is something that is one of a kind. Of course bridges and other engineering achievements are based on mathematical concepts like calculus, but you dont actually built it with 1s, and 0s.
You could not do something like linux when it comes to bridges. Linux in itself severely strike down many arguments that intellectual property can be attributed to code. Watching a self-sufficient community flourish, and surpass some of the richest companies of the world simply by allowing science to carry along their advancement is simply amazing.
Code is in a league of its own. Can you think of one product that is sold out there that is a representation of mathematics, not only an application. Im pretty sure I cant.
Jafo
Reply #30 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:05 PM
Reply #30 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:05 PM
| I assume that only applies to music cds. Cause if you are saying that applies to software , you are just flat out wrong. In the software world, everything revolves more around licensing then general copyright laws. |
In Oz, the ACCC determined it was 'appropriate' that 'mission-critical' software, eg, programs that were essential to a company's survival could be duplicated [made backups] to safeguard their systems. The same [naturally] does not apply to music CDs.
As to what you determine is 'flat out wrong'...you lost me.
When you buy software you obtain a piece of plastic. Unlike currency, there is no restriction on your turning it into a drink coaster or just plain eating it.
The 'content' of the Proggy CD, however has its uses controlled/limited by [usually] an EULA which will include limitations on reproduction and distribution....aka....'Copyright'.
When you read closely, you find that the EULA will have exemptions for local overriding law ... which ultimately means....even IF the proggy producer says 'copy at will', local law at odds with that will cause issues.
Example....the ACCC also determined that Region-coding of DVDs was a 'restriction of free trade' and therefore 'illegal', so lifted any restrictions on region-free DVD Players. The quaint issue then was....being an 'International' agreement to have region coding meant it was not in keeping with that International ruling to facilitate the importation of region-free encoded players, but provided they were imported as region-restricted they could be converted locally with impunity....
This attempt to distinguish between textual coding and alpha/numerical coding is quite humorous.
There IS no difference. Both use a language to create a 'unique' product....one a story, the other a computer program.
Both are designed to be 'read'...and 'comprehended'.....admired....distinguished from others which may be 'similar'. Why then does copyright only pertain to the former and not the latter?.....Because YOU are making the latter and don't CARE? That's hardly an argument, or an appropriate attitude.
When a EULA says 'do not decompile or reverse engineer/modify, etc' it's the same as with a book saying 'do not plagiarize'.
Intellectual property is always someone's ACTUAL 'property'.
You just purchase the rights to make use of it.
Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend? Is all the 'argument' feeble attempts to justify Piracy by putting some odd slant on semantics?...
MountainDragon
Reply #31 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:12 PM
Perhaps, but you can patent a technique, or copyright a poem, both of which are not tangible objects. A poem is words, abstract representations of language, itself a representation of thought/experience, which at it base is ineffable.
So if software code is "math" then written words are "light" since that is ultimately how our sensory system works. So, how can we copyright light?
Reply #31 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:12 PM
| I think you missed the point here. Im not saying that code is based on math. Im saying code IS math. Progamming languages either are created by other programming lanuages or binay, code is in essence 1s and 0s. There is no tangable good with regards to code, except the cd and the manuals (which are other reasons we should give software corporations their money) code is something that is one of a kind. Of course bridges and other engineering achievements are based on mathematical concepts like calculus, but you dont actually built it with 1s, and 0s. |
Perhaps, but you can patent a technique, or copyright a poem, both of which are not tangible objects. A poem is words, abstract representations of language, itself a representation of thought/experience, which at it base is ineffable.
So if software code is "math" then written words are "light" since that is ultimately how our sensory system works. So, how can we copyright light?
billy423uk
Reply #32 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:28 PM
Reply #32 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:28 PM
the intellectual rights are not becuase the code exist but because someone had the intellect to arrange that code in a certain way. the intellectual right of a poet does not lay in the fact that words exist but that the poet arranges the words in a certain way. some one said math is, or math exists. well math only is or exists because we exist. it may be a constant but untill we discovered that constant it did not exist to us. the same can be said of words or language. if anything the code of math is a by product of language. math itself as we know and understand it is a product of language. with language, be it a number or a symbol we write the codes. we explain the codes and we discover the codes. thats why software should have intellectual rights. to be paid for work done. not to slave over a problem and have someone say..ta very much for all your effort, now it's mine. software is much more than just code, it's about ideas and imagination. it's about how can i do this and what will happen if. it's about sitting at a pc for hours on ened and struggling just as much as a poet does to create something that works for the end user, consumer or self. jmo
billy
billy
Jafo
Reply #33 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:40 PM
Reply #33 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:40 PM
| the intellectual rights are not becuase the code exist but because someone had the intellect to arrange that code in a certain way. the intellectual right of a poet does not lay in the fact that words exist but that the poet arranges the words in a certain way. some one said math is, or math exists. well math only is or exists because we exist. it may be a constant but untill we discovered that constant it did not exist to us. the same can be said of words or language. if anything the code of math is a by product of language. math itself as we know and understand it is a product of language. with language, be it a number or a symbol we write the codes. we explain the codes and we discover the codes. thats why software should have intellectual rights. to be paid for work done. not to slave over a problem and have someone say..ta very much for all your effort, now it's mine. software is much more than just code, it's about ideas and imagination. it's about how can i do this and what will happen if. it's about sitting at a pc for hours on ened and struggling just as much as a poet does to create something that works for the end user, consumer or self. jmo billy |
Thankyou....at least one person understands....
Doomgaze
Reply #34 Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:09 AM
Reply #34 Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:09 AM
I guess you missed the fact that in the US Casette and VHS tapes have a surcharge attached?
Why they haven't bothered with that for CD-R/Ws and DVD-+R/W/DLs is beyond me, probably mostly greed from RIAA/MPAA, although they're being forced towards it at a rapid pace.
I'm not even sure why I'm bothering considering its like beating a dead horse that makes noise every few years. But won't rot away. The core fact is, there is nothing anyone can do. There will always be piracy. Someone will always find a way around the "protection".
Why they haven't bothered with that for CD-R/Ws and DVD-+R/W/DLs is beyond me, probably mostly greed from RIAA/MPAA, although they're being forced towards it at a rapid pace.
I'm not even sure why I'm bothering considering its like beating a dead horse that makes noise every few years. But won't rot away. The core fact is, there is nothing anyone can do. There will always be piracy. Someone will always find a way around the "protection".
Jafo
Reply #35 Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:03 AM
Reply #35 Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:03 AM
| I guess you missed the fact that in the US Casette and VHS tapes have a surcharge attached? |
Yes, that applied to Cassettes sold in Australia too....even though the Industry was oblivious to the reality that Oz copyright laws prohibited the duplication anyway.....ostensibly your cassettes were to record your own home made music....
Then people arced up over the surcharge applying to these 'personal recordings' when in reality 99.999% of tapes were used to make rekkids more manageable in cars and the newly thunk-up boom-boxes.
The surcharge SHOULD be applied to blank Cds....in the same way, though the likely price to cover 'product duplication' would up a CD from 20c each to $10 each....and then you'd never hear the end of it....
Corky_O
Reply #36 Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:31 PM
I agree, so why should we allow more, by creating an avenue for people who do not respect the effort that some other person(s) put forth?
I am not a legal expert, so I know very little about the copyright laws, but it seems obvious to me that if there are always going to be pirates (chaos) - there will always be a need for some sort of law or regulation (order) to balance the equation.
I would be happy to share some food (which I worked hard for - whether purchased or grown) with another person if they seemed in need, but I would not share with someone who has decided that he/she sees no reason to pay for, or grow their own (for whatever reason).
Reply #36 Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:31 PM
| There will always be piracy. Someone will always find a way around the "protection". |
I agree, so why should we allow more, by creating an avenue for people who do not respect the effort that some other person(s) put forth?
I am not a legal expert, so I know very little about the copyright laws, but it seems obvious to me that if there are always going to be pirates (chaos) - there will always be a need for some sort of law or regulation (order) to balance the equation.
I would be happy to share some food (which I worked hard for - whether purchased or grown) with another person if they seemed in need, but I would not share with someone who has decided that he/she sees no reason to pay for, or grow their own (for whatever reason).
MountainDragon
Reply #37 Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:49 PM
Well said.
Reply #37 Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:49 PM
| would be happy to share some food (which I worked hard for - whether purchased or grown) with another person if they seemed in need, but I would not share with someone who has decided that he/she sees no reason to pay for, or grow their own (for whatever reason). |
Well said.
billy423uk
Reply #38 Friday, June 17, 2005 1:21 AM
Reply #38 Friday, June 17, 2005 1:21 AM
When all's said and done, it's not illegal to own copyrighted material. As far as piracey is concernerned,It's not illegal to use copyright material. It's not illegal to buy copyrighted material, I don't even think it's illegal to download copyright material as long as you do it as an individual for personal use. Companies who allow their sites to be used as intermediaries break the law because their is monetary gain involved. Laws governing copyright are very flimsy at best re personal use. Books say...not allowed to be stored or transmitted through electronic or mechanical means. If i buy a book and store it on my pc, i may be breaking the law. I will never be taken to court for it though and in the unlikely event i were, I am by law allowed to copy any copyright material for educational purposes. That could range from teaching myself grammar to doing a thesis.
The bottom line is that the man in the street may download software and other products that by law shouldn't be there, and he may be guilty of piracey. he's not a criminal! The websites that encourage him to do it are the criminals. If ISP's were licensed as I suspect they are. It would be a simple matter of passing a law that provided the removal of ISP's that allowed share without recompense to the authors or artists. sites like kazaar etc. Instant fines of say, 50,000 a day or remoal of all electronic equipment used. I know some people are in the middle of court proceedings for downloading but I doubt anything will happen apart from a slap on the wrist. Piracey will never be erradicated but it could be drastically reduced....kazaar has over 6 million users sharing god knows how many files. when you think that most back street pirates copy off the site, the money generated must be astronomical. jmo
billy
The bottom line is that the man in the street may download software and other products that by law shouldn't be there, and he may be guilty of piracey. he's not a criminal! The websites that encourage him to do it are the criminals. If ISP's were licensed as I suspect they are. It would be a simple matter of passing a law that provided the removal of ISP's that allowed share without recompense to the authors or artists. sites like kazaar etc. Instant fines of say, 50,000 a day or remoal of all electronic equipment used. I know some people are in the middle of court proceedings for downloading but I doubt anything will happen apart from a slap on the wrist. Piracey will never be erradicated but it could be drastically reduced....kazaar has over 6 million users sharing god knows how many files. when you think that most back street pirates copy off the site, the money generated must be astronomical. jmo
billy
Jafo
Reply #39 Friday, June 17, 2005 8:13 AM
Reply #39 Friday, June 17, 2005 8:13 AM
| I don't even think it's illegal to download copyright material as long as you do it as an individual for personal use. |
That depends on the actual specifics.....generally it is not inclusive but exclusive.
If the physical copyright allows it then it is legal.
That is what COPYRIGHT is all about....the owner telling the prospective user/abuser what he or she can or cannot do....
billy423uk
Reply #40 Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:39 AM
the copyright laws are not made by the individual and in reality the owner of any work has to follow certain guide lines. all copyright material is allowed to be quoted in part, used in part or whole as an eductaional aid, used in parody, used in debate and the list goes on (all used works should be accreditted to the ower of course). the aim of the copyright law is basically two-fold. the owner doesn't lose money or rights as part of anothers actions and the person using doesn't profit from said using someone elses work. so in truth the owner has no say in what can and can't be done re his/her work. the law of the land says what can or cannot be done. an example...if someone cuts the nike logo in their hair, are they breaking copyright laws? though some may say yes, the courts would say no for many reasons. free advertizing apart lol
billy
Reply #40 Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:39 AM
the copyright laws are not made by the individual and in reality the owner of any work has to follow certain guide lines. all copyright material is allowed to be quoted in part, used in part or whole as an eductaional aid, used in parody, used in debate and the list goes on (all used works should be accreditted to the ower of course). the aim of the copyright law is basically two-fold. the owner doesn't lose money or rights as part of anothers actions and the person using doesn't profit from said using someone elses work. so in truth the owner has no say in what can and can't be done re his/her work. the law of the land says what can or cannot be done. an example...if someone cuts the nike logo in their hair, are they breaking copyright laws? though some may say yes, the courts would say no for many reasons. free advertizing apart lol
billy
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:22 AM
What drivel.
Umm the manipulation of words analogy is what is in fact drivel. Words were created by man as a mere tool of expression. Words didnt appear out of nowhere. And words can be arranged into text and that text into books. They are created by man.
Math is absolute and will always be there. And that is all software is.....math. We cant own math or the way in which it is use. Its impracticle to say you own a piece of software. Its ALL math. You can say that you own the engineering process but not the software. The advancement of software is something that happens without patents.....because its math and it will progess over time. Case in point ....... look at the GNU
Im sorry Jafo but you are the one speaking drivel. We are only understanding math, not creating it.
I am a software developer myself (as I said) so dont take what I say as a grain of salt and dismiss it.
I find that very rude
Oh and Jafo IS right about the purchasing the rights to use software. Thats how it is in the US and Austrailia. Obviously the laws are in need of massive reform, because it seems to actually hinder software progression rather then the other way around.
Intellectual Property is NOT protected by International Property Law. Only America and Austrailia. They are trying to push it for the European Union but its not going well from what I hear. And it makes sense cause it makes no sense to claim Intellectual Property with algorithms. Copyright is protected by international property law, but definately not Intellectual Property.....otherwise linux would never exsist. (Im not sure about music being considered worldwide as IP, I highly doubt it but u could be right on that)
The idea of Intellectual Property in the US is even starting to look iffy. If you follow up on the SCO vs IBM case, you will see that SCO is being made into a fool with its claims that linux is copying unix. I think software companies are just fine using trade secrets.
All in all...you cant sit there and say you created this code......just that you wrote this code. But you can say you created a poem because the words in the poem were created by man, and as such its nothing that will progress over time on its own accord through reserch.
Bah I wrote 2 much