Re: Microsoft Snared by GPLv3

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 13, 2007.

  1. In message <>, impossible wrote:

    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:1184267991.330396@ftpsrv1...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> When I say that freedom is a "zero-sum game," I'm referring specifically
    >>> to those freedoms associated with property ownership.

    >>
    >> This works fine for tangible property, but not for intangible things like
    >> ideas, knowledge and methods. Freedom to use an idea doesn't deprive
    >> anyone else of the freedom to use it.

    >
    > What do you mean when say "use an idea". Think about it? Study it in
    > school? Toss it around in your R&D lab. No, of course not. And all
    > copyrighted materials and patents are freely available to the public for
    > just this purpose. But if you're saying that anyone ought to be able to
    > free ride off the creative work of anyone else and profit unconditionally
    > from their labor, then I don't see how you can make a distinction between
    > that sort of "free" expropriation and the kind that involves walking off
    > with someone's tangible goods.


    "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
    exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
    idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
    to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
    possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
    it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
    because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
    from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
    lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    Have a read starting here
    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml> to disabuse yourself
    of the notion that making copies of copyrighted material must necessarily
    amount to a rip-off.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f77dee$dg9$...
    > In message <>, impossible
    > wrote:
    >

    <snip>

    > Have a read starting here
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml> to disabuse yourself
    > of the notion that making copies of copyrighted material must necessarily
    > amount to a rip-off.


    Ok I read the article - now I suggest you read it too. Mike Masnick does not
    say making copies of copyrighted materials is ok. I fact he say you should
    not break copyright.

    What he does promote is the use of business marketing models whereby
    infinite (non-scarce) resources are better sold as free, and that the
    creator would be better-off making money off the related scarce
    side-resources. I think his reasoning is naive and superficial. He has
    deliberately chosen his product abstraction model to focus purely on the
    physical production side of creative works. If he had more honestly focussed
    on the actual creativity production side, he would have realised that that
    part is the scarce resource, and will never be infinite, no matter what the
    physical means of distribution is.
    This scarce creativity resouce will continue to be successfully and
    naturally marketed via non-free copyright mechanisms.

    Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
    creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
    decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
    Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.

    PC
    Cadae, Jul 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <4698222a$>, Cadae wrote:

    > Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
    > creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
    > decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
    > Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.


    Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long copyright
    terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
    from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
    his arse and doing some new work.

    Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to ongoing
    work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you would
    have much greater incentives towards creativity.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long copyright
    > terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
    > from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
    > his arse and doing some new work.
    >


    And Cliff knew the rules of the game when he made the recording. In any
    case he is a major exception, it is only a minority of artists who
    retain such intellectual property, usually record companies make a one
    shot payment to the artist and keep all the rights. In any case it is
    rare that that a recording continues to be of interest after such a long
    period.

    Law Lord Mansfield discussed the pro's and con's of limited period v
    indefinite copyright in the London case of Millar v Taylor. The date -
    1769, so nothing is new.
    peterwn, Jul 14, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <4698222a$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    (snip)

    >Another clearer way of seeing this is to look at what would happen if
    >creativity were to be disconnected from reward. The result would be a
    >decline in creativity - it's a natural unbreakable feed-back system that
    >Mike Masnick's polemic won't change.


    Absolutely disagree. Creativity is not in any way stifled by not being
    rewarded. In fact, you could make an excellent case that you can
    significantly disadvantage it and it will still happen. Artists in garrets
    spring immediately to mind. :)
    Many people make or build things and/or create (ideas, performances etc)
    as a hobby (ie for fun). I suspect that creativity is simply part of being
    human. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    in message news:f7eebn$uju$...
    > In article <4698222a$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    > (snip)
    >
    > Absolutely disagree. Creativity is not in any way stifled by not being
    > rewarded. In fact, you could make an excellent case that you can
    > significantly disadvantage it and it will still happen. Artists in garrets
    > spring immediately to mind. :)
    > Many people make or build things and/or create (ideas, performances etc)
    > as a hobby (ie for fun). I suspect that creativity is simply part of being
    > human. :)
    >


    That ignores reality - creative people have to eat. If their creativity
    isn't rewarded, then they may have to waste their creative time on floor
    sweeping and burger flipping.

    PC
    Cadae, Jul 26, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f79lnr$etr$...
    > Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
    > copyright
    > terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make money
    > from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting off
    > his arse and doing some new work.
    >
    > Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to ongoing
    > work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
    > would
    > have much greater incentives towards creativity.


    Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He has
    and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted the
    distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
    short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

    No thanks.

    PC
    Cadae, Jul 26, 2007
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <46a8661f$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >
    > ... Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
    >short-live flavour-of-the month junk.


    .... but the airwaves and CD bins are full of exactly that now, as the record
    companies chase short-term profit, spending on massive marketing campaigns
    instead of nurturing talent.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
    Don Hills, Jul 26, 2007
    #8
  9. In message <46a8661f$>, Cadae wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f79lnr$etr$...
    >
    >> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
    >> copyright terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and
    >> make money from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of
    >> getting off his arse and doing some new work.
    >>
    >> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
    >> ongoing work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work,
    >> you would have much greater incentives towards creativity.

    >
    > Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He has
    > and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted the
    > distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
    > short-live flavour-of-the month junk.


    How does that argument make sense, exactly? Is it, as long as Cliff
    Richard's previous work remains under copyright, he is encouraged to
    continue producing important, groundbreak new work? What important,
    groundbreaking new work has he produced lately?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    Cadae wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:f79lnr$etr$...
    >> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
    >> copyright
    >> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make
    >> money
    >> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting
    >> off
    >> his arse and doing some new work.
    >>
    >> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
    >> ongoing
    >> work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
    >> would
    >> have much greater incentives towards creativity.

    >
    > Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He
    > has and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted
    > the distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world
    > with short-live flavour-of-the month junk.
    >
    > No thanks.
    >
    > PC
    >
    >

    What did he write ?
    sam, Jul 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    Don Hills wrote:
    > In article <46a8661f$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >> ... Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
    >> short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

    >
    > ... but the airwaves and CD bins are full of exactly that now, as the record
    > companies chase short-term profit, spending on massive marketing campaigns
    > instead of nurturing talent.
    >


    Thats what Cliff Richard was too, a vehicle for short term profit, A&R
    men matched up their US derived songs with singers with stage names like
    Cliff Richard, Adam Faith, Billy Fury, Marty Wilde, Tommy Steele,
    Georgie Fame invented by Jewish homosexual managers. They never wrote
    any of their own stuff until the Beatles did it. It was just like all
    the recent boy bands.
    Cliff Richard just played that same game all his life.
    sam, Jul 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Cadae wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:f79lnr$etr$...
    >> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
    >> copyright
    >> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make
    >> money
    >> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of getting
    >> off
    >> his arse and doing some new work.
    >>
    >> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
    >> ongoing
    >> work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
    >> would
    >> have much greater incentives towards creativity.

    >
    > Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He
    > has and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has lasted
    > the distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world
    > with short-live flavour-of-the month junk.


    Consider Prince who making so little from the sales of his work through the
    record company establishment gave away 3,000,000 CDs with a British newspaper
    in order to actually get his music to the public and thus sell tickets to his
    live concerts where he actually made some return. His strategy has been very
    successful.

    Consider also Fat Freddy's Drop who enjoyed considerable commercial success by
    avoiding the conventional record company orthodoxy and used 'word of mouth'
    (wrong metaphor) and independent distribution to produce a significant success
    on a global scale all the while maintaining control.

    Packing out a town hall in New Zealand for a couple of nights while keeping
    control of the production makes more money for an artist than a gold record
    through a record company, and the record company usually finds a way to claw
    back all the artist's royalties by way of advances and hidden fees anyway.
    Mark Robinson, Jul 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    Mark Robinson wrote:
    > Cadae wrote:
    >>
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> message news:f79lnr$etr$...
    >>> Bingo--you have exactly described the situation with current long
    >>> copyright
    >>> terms. Where Cliff Richard could still continue to sit back and make
    >>> money
    >>> from a recording he made nearly half a century ago, instead of
    >>> getting off
    >>> his arse and doing some new work.
    >>>
    >>> Whereas in a system where ongoing reward is more closely linked to
    >>> ongoing
    >>> work, instead of depending so heavily on royalties from old work, you
    >>> would
    >>> have much greater incentives towards creativity.

    >>
    >> Cliff Richard has created music that continues to be popular today. He
    >> has and continues to be appropriately rewarded for work that has
    >> lasted the distance. Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the
    >> world with short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

    >
    > Consider Prince who making so little from the sales of his work through
    > the record company establishment gave away 3,000,000 CDs with a British
    > newspaper in order to actually get his music to the public and thus sell
    > tickets to his live concerts where he actually made some return. His
    > strategy has been very successful.
    >
    > Consider also Fat Freddy's Drop who enjoyed considerable commercial
    > success by avoiding the conventional record company orthodoxy and used
    > 'word of mouth' (wrong metaphor) and independent distribution to produce
    > a significant success on a global scale all the while maintaining control.


    A lot of NZ acts work this way, getting their tracks included in
    compilations like Cafe del Mar, Hotel Costes, Brazilectro, Cafe Saint G
    de P and Jazzanova.
    Its similar to getting your application into Debian or Ubuntu.

    First you have to get their attention.
    sam, Jul 26, 2007
    #13
  14. In article <>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    >in message news:f7eebn$uju$...
    >> In article <4698222a$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >> Absolutely disagree. Creativity is not in any way stifled by not being
    >> rewarded. In fact, you could make an excellent case that you can
    >> significantly disadvantage it and it will still happen. Artists in garrets
    >> spring immediately to mind. :)
    >> Many people make or build things and/or create (ideas, performances etc)
    >> as a hobby (ie for fun). I suspect that creativity is simply part of being
    >> human. :)
    >>

    >
    >That ignores reality - creative people have to eat. If their creativity
    >isn't rewarded, then they may have to waste their creative time on floor
    >sweeping and burger flipping.


    ... that's just a job. Don't make the mistake of thinking that only in a job
    can you be creative. Then there are the artists that can't give paintings
    away when they are alive, only to truly make it when they are dead. Doesn't
    change the creativity in any way.

    I say again, creativity and money are not linked.
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 30, 2007
    #14
  15. In article <>, (Don Hills) wrote:
    >In article <46a8661f$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> ... Your proposal of limiting reward would lumber the world with
    >>short-live flavour-of-the month junk.

    >
    >.... but the airwaves and CD bins are full of exactly that now, as the record
    >companies chase short-term profit, spending on massive marketing campaigns
    >instead of nurturing talent.


    Quite. :)

    The real test ... "is it good" ... will be answered in 20 years by the
    question "is it still being played". The answer in many cases will be no.
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 30, 2007
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    in message news:f8jbdd$5a9$...
    >
    > .. that's just a job. Don't make the mistake of thinking that only in a
    > job
    > can you be creative. Then there are the artists that can't give paintings
    > away when they are alive, only to truly make it when they are dead.
    > Doesn't
    > change the creativity in any way.
    >
    > I say again, creativity and money are not linked.
    >


    The phrase "that's just a job" - is a misleading dismissal of what
    constitutes one of the most important aspects of most lives, an aspect that
    people spend considerable amounts of effort and time at.

    If your claim that creativity and money are not linked is correct, then
    surely you should be advocating that they ought to be linked so that there
    can be more creativity.

    PC
    Cadae, Aug 4, 2007
    #16
  17. In article <46b4e8c6$>, "Cadae" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    >in message news:f8jbdd$5a9$...
    >>
    >> .. that's just a job. Don't make the mistake of thinking that only in a
    >> job
    >> can you be creative. Then there are the artists that can't give paintings
    >> away when they are alive, only to truly make it when they are dead.
    >> Doesn't
    >> change the creativity in any way.
    >>
    >> I say again, creativity and money are not linked.


    >The phrase "that's just a job" - is a misleading dismissal of what
    >constitutes one of the most important aspects of most lives, an aspect that
    >people spend considerable amounts of effort and time at.
    >
    >If your claim that creativity and money are not linked is correct, then
    >surely you should be advocating that they ought to be linked so that there
    >can be more creativity.


    Nope. The whole point here is that you can pay someone lots of money and
    they may not be at all creative. You can also pay someone very little money
    and they can be very creative. They are not linked and you cannot link them.
    Creativity may or may not be displayed by somone at their job ... but paying
    someone more will not increase creativity. If you thik they can be connected
    in any way, please give at least one example.

    Do you work to live or live to work ? Hint - only one of these choices is
    clever :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Aug 13, 2007
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Bruce Sinclair" <> wrote
    in message news:f9o8oi$gs7$...
    >
    > Nope. The whole point here is that you can pay someone lots of money and
    > they may not be at all creative. You can also pay someone very little
    > money
    > and they can be very creative. They are not linked and you cannot link
    > them.
    > Creativity may or may not be displayed by somone at their job ... but
    > paying
    > someone more will not increase creativity. If you thik they can be
    > connected
    > in any way, please give at least one example.
    >
    > Do you work to live or live to work ? Hint - only one of these choices is
    > clever :)


    .... and not paying them for their creativity is a sure-fire way to decrease
    their creative output. Rewarding creativity so that they don't have to earn
    a living flipping burgers is going to increase creativity, not decrease it.

    PC
    Cadae, Aug 16, 2007
    #18
  19. On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:32:11 +1200, Cadae wrote:

    > Rewarding creativity so that they don't
    > have to earn a living flipping burgers is going to increase creativity,


    That does not make sense.

    Those that "flip burgers" do that because they cannot do anything better.


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Aug 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cadae Guest

    "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:32:11 +1200, Cadae wrote:
    >
    >> Rewarding creativity so that they don't
    >> have to earn a living flipping burgers is going to increase creativity,

    >
    > That does not make sense.
    >
    > Those that "flip burgers" do that because they cannot do anything better.
    >
    >


    If creative people can't get money through their creativity, then they have
    to earn money some way. Flipping burgers is an illustrative non-creative
    oriented task performed in order to earn a living. Rewarding creativity
    would allow the burger-flipper to instead earn the living through
    creativity, and not have to flip burgers.

    PC
    Cadae, Aug 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jonathan Walker

    Microsoft cites GPLv3 Legal Concerns

    Jonathan Walker, Jul 7, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    337
    Jonathan Walker
    Jul 7, 2007
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Microsoft Snared by GPLv3

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 13, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    270
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 13, 2007
  3. Mickey Mouse

    The split over GPLv3 deepens - Linus Torvalds

    Mickey Mouse, Jul 16, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    787
    Shane
    Jul 18, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Linux, DVD's and GPLv3

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 28, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    113
    Views:
    1,886
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Aug 6, 2007
  5. Malcolm

    Re: Linux, DVD's and GPLv3

    Malcolm, Jul 28, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    298
    Mickey Mouse
    Jul 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page