| |||||||||||||
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission cultureVilla: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culturePosted Jan 30, 2013 3:11 UTC (Wed) by samlh (subscriber, #56788)In reply to: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture by felixfix Parent article: Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
> Unless you have carefully documented how much of your training and education and informal contacts also went into that thing you made, and carefully ceded the correct portion of your copy control to those contributors, then you are whistling up the wrong tree and barking past the cemetary.
Hmm... you know, I did indeed pay for my education through tuition and taxes. Also, if someone gives something to me out of altruism, I have no problem with that. I use and contribute to free software because the conditions and compensation is reasonable, on either side of the fence. Not all my coding is free software, however.
> Yes, you built it, and you should be proud of it, but to claim that no one gets to use any of what you built when they build their own improvements is to pretend that you built it entirely de novo; a virgin idea, to borrow a phrase.
If there was a way to make sure I got recompensed for my part in it, I wouldn't mind. Indeed, the best way I know if for things to get assigned value is through the free market.
> I wonder how many borrowed phrases you have in your own post. Did you invent all those words yourself, the grammar, the fonts, website, and internet which you used to post and we used to read?
Likely he didn't. All those were made by the altruism or profit-seeking of other people. How is this an argument against the current system? LWN could not exist if the editors did not get money to buy food with.
(Log in to post comments)
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 3:23 UTC (Wed) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
> LWN could not exist if the editors did not get money to buy food with.
We pay the editors because they are willing to write and operate this wonderful site in exchange for the money -- completely unrelated to the legality of redistributing their work.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 3:46 UTC (Wed) by samlh (subscriber, #56788) [Link]
Leaving aside questions of morality, if it was legal to repost articles under your own name or to collect articles from around the internet into a book and sell it, perhaps the sites like LWN could stay afloat. I doubt it, however.
Please note, I agree the system is not perfect, but wholesale abolishment will cause far more problems than they solve. I, for one, support the rights of the Linux copyright holders to require compliance with the GPL.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 18:12 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Leaving aside questions of morality, if it was legal to repost articles under your own name or to collect articles from around the internet into a book and sell it, perhaps the sites like LWN could stay afloat. Sorry, but this is bullshit. You are mixing two totally unrelated issues: copyright and plagiarism. Plagiarism was considered a big problem for thousands of years and has nothing to do with modern copyright. The fact that LWN does not try to enforce it's copyright all that strictly (all articles more then one week old are free and are widely circulated on the net) shows that you don't need to enforce copyright all that strictly beyond the unalianable rights (the "right for the name", mostly).
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 31, 2013 5:45 UTC (Thu) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]
It's my understanding that plagiarism was NOT considered a problem until recent times. Ancient authors freely used works by other authors long dead, wrote anonymously, and even wrote pseudonymously, using the names of ancient authors. Ideas and words used to be free, as in speech. Only recently did the idea of owning imaginary property come about.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 31, 2013 12:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Well, if first century is "recent times" to you, then yes. Till about then it was not a big problem since human settlements were small and people know each other well enough that it was impossible to pretend you are great philosopher using only works of others. As settlement grew problem become more and more acute but it become serious problem only after invention of printing press since that's when reader finally lost any hope of ever seeing the author end and when price of books went down so drastically that you needed to sell thousands of them to make a decent living.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 10:05 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
"Indeed, the best way I know if for things to get assigned value is through the free market."
I'm sorry - are you arguing for a free market, or are you arguing for massive government intervention to prohibit some forms of activity in favour of creating an entirely artificial scarcity as state support for other kinds of activity?
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 30, 2013 15:32 UTC (Wed) by samlh (subscriber, #56788) [Link]
You cannot have a successful free market if there is no incentive not to steal. Most everyone agrees that physical labor to produce a product should be protected. Why should intellectual labor not be protected as well?
You also seem to imply that government regulation is a bad thing, a priori. Government simply enforces societal norms as codified through law. I, for one, support the belief that creators should be rewarded for creating.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture Posted Jan 31, 2013 5:53 UTC (Thu) by blujay (guest, #39961) [Link]
Where did you get the idea that the link between society and government is such a one-way street? And who decides what is a norm? The list of governments which have recreated their societies as their leaders pleased is nearly endless, not to mention the real governments which exist today all over the world which oppress their citizens every day according to the whims of those in power. Your utopia doesn't exist in the real world. There is no such altruistic, norm-codifying government on the face of the planet.
|
|||||||||||||