Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Nov 2011 14:18 UTC
Legal The European Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union, is kind of on a roll lately. We already discussed how they outlawed generic ISP-side internet filters, and now, in an opinion (so it's not a ruling just yet), Yves Bot, an advocate-general at the Court, has stated that functions provided by computer programs, as well as the programming languages they're written in, do not receive copyright protection. The opinion is very well-written, and relatively easy to read and grasp. Note: Brilliant quote from a comment over at Hacker News: "Copyright makes you write your own code. Patents prevent you from writing your own code."
Thread beginning with comment 498397
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Tue 29th Nov 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:

I know the article isn't about downloading music/warez/stuff, but people started about whether copying is stealing or not.

Bytes aren't physical, unlike the milk bottle, but I'm trying to illustrate that that's the whole point: it's digital, so it can be copied perfectly. Hence there is no need to steal something by removing it from the owner in to your own possession. If you copy it you have it. Wether it's music or software.

It's also not about the owner having it and then losing it, it's about having it, but unable to sell it because people copy it.

Now regarding vague ideas, I have nothing against people doing their own thing. I should be allowed to code my own version of OS X. I don't think I should copy the artwork or sell it pre-installed on a computer with a piece of fruit on it, but if people have ideas I should be able to create my own version.

I have seen some generally described stuff that has been labeled IP, making it look very silly. Like the hyperlink or the one click buy. That's stuff we can do without.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by JLF65 on Tue 29th Nov 2011 23:56 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
JLF65 Member since:

You're clearly unfamiliar with the term 'artificial scarcity' - look it up sometime. Some people are currently making money selling things that have no (or little) intrinsic value. Time always eliminates these 'jobs', and it's a good thing. Society shouldn't spend more on things than what they are worth. That's inefficiency, and pulls everybody down (except for a scant few getting rich off said inefficiency).

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Wed 30th Nov 2011 07:39 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:

If you'd only pay for what something's really worth the producer of this product can only break even if he sells all of his stock, making no profit.

It's unlikely you can sell of of your products, unless they are iPhones or iPads, but why would someone go through all of this trouble when he can not make a profit? And part of the profit can be used to create more and better products.

So if people copy music/software it might reach a point for some producers to ask themselves "why bother?". Companies like Microsoft can take a large amount of piracy and even arguably benefit from it, but smaller companies can't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by CapEnt on Wed 30th Nov 2011 11:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
CapEnt Member since:

I do get your point: you are worried about the people that will lose their jobs.

But thats the point! Technology advances, and made several business models and professions obsolete throughout the history.

And what happened? Nothing special. New professions arrived, with even more jobs than before.

Holding the progress in the name of protectionism of a dying business model is even worse than the jobs that will end due it.

If we protected every dying business from the future itself, we would still be using near unchanged XIX century technology, and living the horrendous lifestyle from that era.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Wed 30th Nov 2011 12:27 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:

I'm not really worried about jobs or progress, I'm merely trying to explain why I consider copying theft even though nothing is taken away from the owner.

The music business, to stay with them, started putting music on records. Then we got cassettes, cds, and now cd sales are plummeting as people start downloading (legal and illegal).

People have been copying music all those years. The copy however wasn't near as good as the original, it took time to do a copy, it was a cumbersome process too. And at least here in The Netherlands when you bought an empty media you had to pay some extra money to compensate the music industry.

Right now we have entered an age were any idiot can copy music (most do), with only the click of a mouse button. You have an exact copy. No loss of sound quality. You can duplicate it, spread it, up/download it with almost no effort and in (very) large numbers. There is no compensation for the music industry when you buy a computer or get an Internet connection (nor would I want to pay them any money, bastards).

I think copying/stealing/whatever of music has always been around, but technology has become so advanced that pirates can do serious damage to music sales. When you download music without paying you are depriving a music provider of a sale, just like if you'd walk in to a store and steal an album. The stolen album removes the album from the store and which is unable to sell it. But I don't think it's much different to copying/downloading music where, like the store theft, you get the music for free and the store doesn't get any money.

Now I don't think this can be fixed in the current model. I think you should be able to download anything that's downloadable and I don't want to pay extra money for tech products because I might listen to music or watch video on it.

I think things like iTunes or Spotify can provide a platform and service that makes it so easy to acquire music that people would be willing to pay for it. People will still download music illegal, but they always have. At least thanks to iTunes and Spotify the music industry gets money they otherwise would't have.

But whatever model we will end up up I consider copying of music basically the same as stealing.

Reply Parent Score: 1