Sadly, you are not the brave, solitary exception.
Why does this matter? Well, because there is no rational basis for assuming someone is an authority,
Especially not someone on Kuro5hin who passes the following judgement in one breath, "watered down Ph.D thesis", then gets everything wrong in the next breath. Maybe my writing is too dense and ironic for you. Is that it?
The debate over copyright, and the GPL in particular, centers on an issue of rights -- the author's versus his or her audience.
Well, duh. I think everybody gets that,
Let's remember that statement and call it $YOU_ARE_WRONG.
but if you had worked a little bit harder, you would have noticed the debate actually centers upon ownership, which is more restrictive than rights. If I write a book, I own it, but you may have the right to read it if published.
What are you babbling about? If copyright were property, I would be dispossessing you of ownership whenever I infringed your copyright. Granted (no pun intended), if I were to break into the copyright office and substitute my name for yours in a certain document, that would be theft; but I didnt do that.
Copyright is not property. End of story. Theft of a book is worse than copyright infringement of the same book.
If I stole your book, the one you wrote, you would be out the cost of having it physically reprinted, and a hypothetical sale to my future self. If I just copy it, you're out the latter, alone. If I destroy the book I stole, you're out the former and I am guilty of "destruction of property".
Copyright is a state backed promise that I cannot exploit your expression for X years. That's it.
There are almost no similiarities between copyright and property laws. To illustrate the differences between the two concepts, consider the following
I purchase permission from you, the copyright owner, to copy your book. I am now legally able to copy that book from anyone who has a copy, whether you wish that I do or do not. For example, I might walk into a bookstore and copy your book, even if the publisher and the bookstore don't want me to. The bookstore could kick me out, of course, but they cannot sue me for copyright infringement, they cannot charge me with theft, and they cannot recover however much of the copy I've made. It has nothing to do with the owner of the copy, it's the owner of the copyright that allows copying.
It's illegal to copy a copy you own, something I am sure you will recognize as being completely different than theft. It's obviously nonsensical to talk about stealing from yourself. Essentially, you are claiming that with copying, I steal from someone one I've never even met, and who doesn't even know I 'stole' it.
You make a variation of the same solecism in your original post where you confuse the state of authorship with the state of ownership. Of course if you write a book, you wrote it; the expression has an identifiable author. But copyright isnt concerned with taking away your expression, it's concerned with limiting the use of that expression in others. This is something that you cannot do by virtue of expressing yourself, this is something that you can only do by virtue of government.
Marx doesnt care about such arrangements in civil society. Were you paying any attention at all, or were you simply in a mad rush to demonstrate your reading incomprehension?
This is all rather frustrating. I am sorry but
you are not addressing any of the substantive and accurate points I made and are further making demands of me to wade through your inchoherent speeches about
property, copyright and Marxism.
Software ownership seems to be under an attack of ownership in this debate, such that the GPLers wish to deny the individual author(s) any special rights of ownership, rights which we would not question if we were talking about a book.
No offense, but you seriously need to shut the fuck up and learn what it is you are talking about. The GPL is voluntary license on both ends. An author retains his copyright under the GPL. The debate over the GPL is purely one about rights and obligations (in civil society).
<snip the pedantic prattle from your college essay>
<snip pedantic reference and conflation of a rhetorical fallacy with something we call an "authoritative reference".
I'm sorry if you didnt get the point. Maybe you should spend less time reading canonical lists of rhetorical and informal logic fallacies and more time understanding what it is you purport to reply to.
I did not claim
Capitalism would be harmed by free software.
I dont care. Your claims are incidental to my point and I dont even know why you originally replied except to make unrelated speeches about things you demonstrably know very little about: copyright, property, Marxism.
I suggested free software results in a "death" of the author. Big difference.
There are some differences in your head about something that has very little to do with what I've been talking about and, for that matter, what you *think* you are talking about. I dont care about these differences.
Further, software in general does allow people to interact, as you say, but so does a book, so you've failed to make a distinction between books and programs in a way which makes this 'death of its author' automatic.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think I understand where you are coming from but it's safer for me not to presume anything and just call you on your incoherence.
Regardless of whatever it is you are saying, I'm going to have to stick to my guns and inform you that I was not interested in your internal monologue before I made my original post, and I am not interested in entertaining this same, nonsequitur monologue now. I attempted to clarify my position with the second post, but that doesnt seem to have had the required effect. Indeed, you refered to it as "<snip>".
My point was that software, *regardless of license*, would be identified by Marx as a commodity, and that license wars in particular as an expression of commodity fetishism. Software creates a demand for computer and network products. That is the only importance of the GPL (a list of copyright restrictions in promotion of civil society) to Marx.
If you check out Slashdot, you will notice that there's a lot of talk about competition between closed and open source licensing models; competition leads to products. In fact, if no license other than the GPL existed, Slashdot would still be consumed with talking about gizmos, and ads, and networking, and software, and so on.
This is a pure unadulterated expression of capitalism.
You're talking to me about "death of authors" as this has any relation to my thesis or as if it makes any sense whatsoever.
The GPL might work for some software, but it is not a rubric which should be forced upon all software.
No one is forcing you to do anything, the GPL is completely voluntary. What the hell are you babbling about? (That was a rhetorical question, this discussion and your speeches are over.)
[ Parent ]