Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2007 20:58 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it. The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of copyright - to promote progress, for the benefit of the public - then we must make changes in the other direction. This talk by Richard M. Stallman is broken into two parts: the main talk and the question and answer sessions following the talk. Both are available in only OGG/Theora format in keeping with Stallman's wishes."
Permalink for comment 257129
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The Gimme generation
by b3timmons on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 01:57 UTC in reply to "The Gimme generation"
Member since:

You must not be referring to the talk itself, since what is proposed very much depends upon copyright. Some of the comments here, OTOH, have indeed suggested no copyright, but they are not mere assertions but contain arguments which you have not addressed. Moreover, these commenters have not shown ignorance, especially regarding issues around copyrights.

If copyrights protect the author as you suggest, it follows that all authors are protected, right? This is contradicted, however, by the existence of authors who have wished for the copyright on their work to expire when their work no longer sells but their contract extends longer. If the copyright term were shorter, i.e., if their work were no longer under copyright, then they could take the work and, say, add substantial revisions that they had prepared, and release it under copyright again (along perhaps with new contract). So much for the author being protected by copyright.

Your point about people wanting things free of charge is not that simple. In particular, you are presumably focused on not "basically everything" but works of information, and the economics for it are fundamentally different than for (physical) property. (Of course, the talk itself never suggested that all creators of such works never be paid for their creation.)

Edited 2007-07-22 01:59

Reply Parent Score: 4