Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 18:51 UTC
Internet & Networking It's official now. The signs had been there for a while now. While the west bangs on about the importance of freedom and democracy, they don't actually want anyone to have too much of it. The US, France, and the UK have jointly pretty much declared war on freedom on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 476815
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.


No, it was not.

You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it.


Nope. I don't. It's not my problem whether you believe me or not. All of my music is purchased from either iTunes or Amazon. All of the software I have is legitimately licensed, or is open source. And I don't download torrents of movies.

I know very few who can who don't file-share/copy ever.


Again, whether believe me or not. I'm telling you the truth. I don't file-share / copy unless it is something that I am legally entitled to copy. As an author and developer myself, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I supported copyright infringement.

There are definitely some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law. I agree. I'm a member of the Author's Guild. But I strongly opposed their attempts at forcing public libraries to pay royalties each time they loan a book. I saw that as highly destructive because it would have forced a lot of public libraries to close (many of which already operate on shoe-string budgets). And ensuring the children and the under-privileged have access to quality reading materials is more important than making a few extra bucks off royalties.

I also strongly opposed their legal action against Amazon when they claimed the text to speech capabilities of the Kindle violated copyright law, since I believed making more reading material accessible to the blind trumped any copyright concerns that might exist. And it was difficult me to see how the text to speech would have been harmful anyway. After all, it would have made books that weren't currently accessible to the blind much more easily accessible, and probably helped, rather than harmed sales.

So yes, I agree that there are some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law out there. But I do not think Copyleft is the answer. Almost everything that is licensed under a copyleft license really isn't all that innovative. Most of the time it just duplicates the functionality, often in a half baked way, of existing commercial copyrighted solutions. There are a few exceptions, sure. But there are very few actual "copylefted" products out there that support the idea that it fosters innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 20:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Right..... You know you are using god knows how much copyleft software right now right? Linux might be a copy of Unix, but there is a lot of innovation going on there all the time. It's left the other Unix kernels way behind. Right now on the desktop GUI on Linux there is a lot of innovation. I think much of it is barking mad, but it's still innovation. There is loads that started in the free software world and was only noticed when the closed world repackaged it. Apple are masters at this. There is plenty of cases where the closed world is playing catch up with the open world. There is also some great stuff happening under Creative Commons (not least Wikipedia!). Jamendo is really cool. Where copyleft can't be competed with is in incremental improvement. The freedoms it gives ensure it can't be sat on to go stale. But there is still revolutions on something instead of evolution. It could well be where I'm looking, but it's plain copyright that seams to be where the stale stuff is. This is just beginning to leak out of computers into other fields. Exciting times. :-)

Edited 2011-06-10 20:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 20:37 in reply to "RE[7]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Linux might be a copy of Unix, but there is a lot of innovation going on there all the time. It's left the other Unix kernels way behind.


Oh really? I'd argue the SunOS kernel is still way ahead of the Linux kernel. And most of the so called "innovation" in the Linux kernel was actually developed by Sun and graciously released under an open source licence that allowed Linux to implement it. DTrace would be a very good example. I would also argue that ZFS is a better file system than anything currently available for Linux. Once again, a port of ZFS to Linux is in the works. But it's not ready yet. And even when it is ready, like DTrace, Linux didn't innovate anything. They just copied (legally because Sun allowed it) innovation from Sun Microsystems.

Right now on the desktop GUI on Linux there is a lot of innovation.


Really? I'd argue that GNOME is currently around five years behind Windows, and at least seven years behind Mac when it comes to the desktop. When Windows 8 and OS X Lion come out, I'd argue that gets closer to 10 years behind. KDE is doing a little better than GNOME. But not much.

There is loads that started in the free software world and was only noticed when the closed world repackaged it.


Like what?

Apple are masters at this. There is plenty of cases where the closed world is playing catch up with the open world.


I'll ask again. Like what?

There is also some great stuff happening under Creative Commons (not least Wikipedia!).


Sure. Wikipedia is great project. But it's not innovative. It's not like new and fascinating research is being published on Wikipedia. It's just a public repository of existing information. It has the advantage that it can be updated instantly, and there are a ton of contributors. But that's both a blessing and a curse. There's a lot of inaccurate and uncited information Wikipedia. (personally, I think Wikipedia should just delete when something isn't cited instead of say [citation needed], and they should delete "some people think" statements instead of saying [who?]. But that's an argument for another time)

Where copyleft can't be competed with is in incremental improvement. The freedoms it gives ensure it can't be sat on to go stale.


There's a ton of copyleft software out there is very stale and hasn't been updated in years. Many of the authors simply got bored and moved onto other projects and such. And there's some that just plain doesn't work very well anymore.

Tried installing Ruby on Rails 3 on OS X 10.6 lately? Try that if you want a major exercise in frustration. It's really sad, given that Mac was, at least at one time, the platform of choice for Rails developers. A commercial company selling traditional copyrighted software couldn't get away with that. They'd have to make it work for me because my business support contract with them requires that they do.

Edited 2011-06-10 20:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2