M Harris wrote:
On Monday 16 October 2006 00:18, Stevens wrote:
Well, you obviously don't write stuff for a living. Look, copyright law exists for a reason, and that is to protect the author's vested interest in his work. In principle it is very much like a patent.
Wrong on all three points. 1) I do write for my living. 2) Copyright law exists to protect publishers. 3) Copyrights and Patents are *completely* different things... Patents protect *ideas* whereas copyrights protect published works. Stallman is absolutely correct when he asserts that software and software documentation should not be patentable (as is the case in some of Europe). Stallman details the evils of software patents in the U.S. and he also details the complex differences between copyright law and patent law... very interesting reading. There is coming a time when copyright will restrict readers to the point where e-books will only be allowed to be read once. Books will not be allowed to be resold. Books will not be allowed to be loaned. Isn't it funny that Stallman has given me the right to copy his book in any medium I want.... and yet, I *purchased* a copy of his book from his site? Copyleft doesn't mean you can't make a living writing... it just means that the material is "free" (as in freedom) and that the reader and the community are free to use and *add* to the knowledge base from the use of *free* source materials. Copyright law goes back to the printing press and the central distribution of printed materials.... and was *never* intended to prevent the reader from "copying" the book for his own use with say a pencil. Today copyright law has become an evil monster having far more scope and power in the computer age than it was ever intended to have in the printing press days. (Stallman's discussion of this point is powerfull... read it) What irked me from the original post was that an individual wants to use a *free* and *open* system and set of tools to close and lock down and restrict.... just seems a little hypocritical. If you want to lock down and restrict than use a locked down and restricted (say expensive) commercial application and join their closed and strangled society. Otherwise, if you believe in freedom then use free and open systems and *encourage* freedom. Freely add to the knowledge base and freely encourage others to join the freedom movement and the betterment of a free society. It is possible to make a living writing *open* sources... of all kinds.
Do you still live on that planet earth? I do not believe that people pay for something, what they get for free as well, here free as in copied !!!! To write something cost time and money and must be somehow rewarded. I try to protect myself. If you do not need to, good for you! To use free tools and do something with it is a COMPLETE different story from that you described. I do not give away (free) pdf tools, I want to sell INFORMATION, and that is packed into a free format (free as in for everybody easy available). To read a pdf file you still need a device, which is also not free, but easy available! To live with open source is still more a dream than reality! Somewhere the money must come from. Ok, you get a piece of bad documented (if at all) software and a hint that you get consultant if you pay for, with some goodies. Otherwise, Novell could not make SuSE for free and still survive! Please don't get my words wrong, I don't want to say SuSE documentation is bad! The copy right is a nice feature! However, in the reality of life it is a small part. Another example is MP3, the players are free, but the contents is still copy protected and needs to be so, otherwise it will be copied and the artists would not get anything! http://www.garageband.com has good music, which is free! Here are often the free songs are an advertisement to buy the CD from them. bye Ronald Wiplinger