"stealing"? was Re: [plug] Computer Angels (10,000 programs)

[Russell]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:04:36PM +0800, garry wrote:
> Even though I'm a part of Computer Angels and exclusively a Debian user,  I 
> think that there is a place for closed source software.
> 
> Just not my place.

Nor mine.

> If "John Smith's" business model and income is built on the closed source 
> and-sold-as-is model, he certainly wouldn't say it is a victimless crime when 

That (common) business model can't work without laws that

  - treat information and other intangibles as property, creating a
    class of property owners that we call "copyright holders"
  - restrict what you and I can do with that property without the
    copyright holder's permission, including in the privacy of our own
    homes and businesses

Whether we should accept those restrictions in exchange for some
greater good they might bring, and where the line should be between
what is ok and what is infringement, is really what the debate is or
should be about.  I think that free software (and its cousin open
source) is proving at least that that line is in the wrong place.

> someone doesn't pay him for his work. After all, he distributes by sale his 
> product with the copyright intact. As soon as his work is redistributed 
> without his permission, his copyright and his ability to earn a living are 
> affected.

If the business model doesn't work, get another business model.  (Says
Russell, playing devil's advocate here.)  Before you get angry at
this, consider that this is exactly what a large part of the FS and OS
community is saying to the music industry right now.  (I'm assuming
that the free software, open source and anti-{dmca,riaa,mpaa,etc}
communities overlap a lot, which I think is a fair assumption.  Hmm,
those acronyms are very US-centric.)

> If you have his product legitimately, you are bound by a contract for it's 
> use. If you don't have his permission, it is stolen goods.

As I alluded to previously, it's unlikely that anything has been
stolen.  Something may have been illegally copied, and that's a
different thing.

If I've agreed to a contract, then that's probably binding.  Copyright
doesn't require a contract to be enforcable.

> Personally I think that the closed source operating system software business 
> is in a bit of bother, and the open source model is proving superior. But if 
> something is sold under certain conditions, ie a licence, there is a legal 
> AND a moral responsibility to obey that. No matter how much we abhore the 
> practices of certain really big companies, they do have their rights too.
> 
> Respecting this because it is the right thing to do is a part of Ethics..

There are more considerations in acting ethically than just obeying
the law.  Sometimes those other considerations may conflict with the
law.

I'm not encouraging anyone to break the law, but I think it's good to
point out the mis-use of terms like "stealing" and "piracy" when they
are applied to copyright.

> My 5cents worth..

And mine.

> 
> Garry
> 
> > Seriously, for people to understand the issues involved, the correct
> > terms need to be used.  Calling copyright infringement "stealing"
> > reinforces the attitude that restrictive copyright practices are ok,
> > and that it's also ok to have harsh penalties for what are really
> > victimless crimes.