I thought that the courts have ruled that this file sharing software was being used to violate the copyrights and shut down Napster. You can compile tracks from your CDs to make your own mix CDs but I don’t think that you can make mix CDs for your friends with your music legally.
This article on Slashdot contains links to several studies bolstering the claim that file-sharing improves CD sales.
UnuMondo
Making mix cassettes for your friends has been upheld as fair use since the early 1980’s. There’s no reason this should change with the advent of recordable CDs or file-sharing software.
UnuMondo
No slashdot had an articles showing that the music industry is still going strong. Another article that said basically popular music was popular whether you paid for it or not. Hardly a case for saying people browse Napster to decide what is good.
No slashdot had an articles showing that the music industry is still going strong. Another article that said basically popular music was popular whether you paid for it or not. Hardly a case for saying people browse Napster to decide what is good.
Further nitpick: Read the licenses in the links provided. Linux is released under the GNU General Public License and Mozilla is under the Mozilla Public License, in conjunction with the GPL. Both of these allow repackaging, redistribution, and resale of software either with or without modification, subject to certain terms, such as providing any derivative works under the same licensing terms (in other words, you can’t get somebody else’s work, change it a little bit, and say it’s your work now and make the code less accessible than it was for you. If you used somebody else’s code, then other people get to use yours).
From the Mozilla Public License:
From the GPL:
Openoffice is released under the LGPL, which is a slightly more (or less, depending on your perspective) restrictive license than the GPL, but software released under the LGPL is still Free.
Note that the “free” in Free Software refers to freedom of use, not necessarily free of charge. However, Free Software is also often free. To be honest, UnoMondo made a slight mistake in calling it Open Source, rather than free. It’s a really nitpicky difference, but there is one.
Anyway, Free Software is copyrighted as well, but the copyright is used to protect and enforce free use of the software, rather than to stifle it.
Did you even look at the links provided in that article? This one shows that CD’s were up possibly due to Napster, ergo Napster would be causing people to go out and buy CDs and support artists.
UnuMondo
Did you even look at the links provided in that article? This one shows that CD’s were up possibly due to Napster, ergo Napster would be causing people to go out and buy CDs and support artists.
UnuMondo
It’s UnuMondo, please make note (not a thread goes by without someone referring to me as “UnoMondo”).
In any event, I used the term “open-source software” because the public tends to recognize that better than “free software”. Sure, it may be wrong, but like “cracker” vs. “hacker”, or “GNU/Linux” vs “Linux”, it’s something the public has already decided on without regard for idealism.
Precisely, although the GPL is therefore referred to as a “copyleft” instead of a copyright. I would still favour a world without copyrights even if it meant that the GPL could no longer be enforced. I think it would be a small price to pay for removing government’s hands from (usually talentless) artists and letting people compete in a truly private sector where their talent and their ability to capture people’s hearts is all they can rely on.
UnuMondo
(aside to emarkp:
English is a dynamic language. Many, if not most, dictionaries include both illegal software duplication and hijacking a radio or tv broadcast as valid definitions of “piracy.”)
You can’t have competition in a world with no rules. For example, what stops me from copying your stuff and selling it as I own it?
andros, I’m familiar with the English language, thank you very much. Dictionaries represent usage, and hence bad usage will get into the dictionaries. Theft connotes depriving someone of something. An unlicensed copy of software/music/media/etc. deprives neither the licensee nor the copyright holder of the work in question.
The war of nomenclature seeks to define terms in an advantageous manner. By referring to people who have unlicensed copies as “pirates”, the MPAA/RIAA/etc. cast themselves as the good guys vs. the bad guys. I would bet that the majority of americans have at least one unlicensed copy of some IP, and yet there is no wholesale slaughter of people on the open seas. Nor are people being deprived of property.
Call a spade a spade, please. The issues of IP are complicated, and trivializing them (not to mention victims of real piracy) only clouds the issue.
Yes, that’s why art didn’t exist before the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, right?
People create even if they don’t receive a return on investment. Many writers in ancient Rome such Martial recited their works publicly, and then listeners would go out and sell their own transcriptions. The earliest Shakespeare texts we have include transcriptions of the play’s dialogue from watching a public performance, and several plays were publishing by printing houses without Shakespeare’s knowledge. Competition actually flourishes in that case, and this leads to innovation because someone has to one-up all the other people that can offer the same thing.
UnuMondo
Can’t have competition without rules? It seems to me you have NOTHING but PURE competition when there aren’t any rules to stifle it.
That’s exactly what I was thinking, I think he might have made a mistake in phrasing that post.
UnuMondo
Nonsense. Why as an artist should I bother to innovate if I can’t enjoy the fruits of my creativity? Why sweat to come up with something wildly hot and new if fifteen minutes later a bunch of talentless nobodies with copy manchines and CD burners can duplicate it for a fraction of my effort and make money off of my hard work?
Yes, some people will make art no matter what. Some people will also volunteer to care for the sick free of charge. But if you want reliable nursing care you’ve got to pay the nurses.
Consider this – some forms of art have large up-front costs. A new video game can take $5 million dollars to make. A new movie can take $100 million to make. If you don’t provide the companies who make these forms of entertainment a reliable way to recover their costs they will simply stop making them.
If I may so bold, may I ask what you do for a living?
Is it fair to assume that you don’t work in the creative arts?
Nonsense. Why as an artist should I bother to innovate if I can’t enjoy the fruits of my creativity? Why sweat to come up with something wildly hot and new if fifteen minutes later a bunch of talentless nobodies with copy manchines and CD burners can duplicate it for a fraction of my effort and make money off of my hard work?
Yes, some people will make art no matter what. Some people will also volunteer to care for the sick free of charge. But if you want reliable nursing care you’ve got to pay the nurses.
Consider this – some forms of art have large up-front costs. A new video game can take $5 million dollars to make. A new movie can take $100 million to make. If you don’t provide the companies who make these forms of entertainment a reliable way to recover their costs they will simply stop making them.
If I may so bold, may I ask what you do for a living?
Is it fair to assume that you don’t work in the creative arts?
I am a university student. However, I do some free software development. I dedicate quite a bit of my time to it, try to contribute solid, robust, reusable code to the world, and I don’t care if I don’t get a dime for it. Anything I develop I put under the GPL, which means people have a right to copy it as much as they please, and even make their own modifications and sell them if that’s what they wish.
As far as the creative arts you’re thinking of, there are plenty of musicians who don’t care if their music is copied en masse (Phish is the biggest example, but there are numerous bands that support file trading of both live recordings and CDs bought from stores). These bands are still supported by their fans, but outside of restrictions over what I can do with my own property (if I buy a piece of plastic, I should be able to do what I want with that piece of plastic, including copying the data on it). If a person has legitimate talent, he will either enjoy support during his life, or will go unnoticed during his life but enjoy immortality, which is what all real artists strive. But no matter what, someone’s desire for recognition should not encroach on what I do in my own home. Removing copyright stamps out only control freaks, altruism survives and flourishes.
UnuMondo