Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

[WorBlux]

You do realize that most countries do not follow the common law system, right? Pretty much only countries conqu*ahem*colonized by Britain follow common law. Statutory law the system is the legal system for well over a majority of the world.

English common law is but one type of dozens of customary legal systems. For example Ijma is the name give to the customary portion of sharia law. The law merchant, the direct predecessor and template of the uniform commercial code. There are no legal systems anywhere that cannot show customary roots. There is good reason for this. If we go be the words alone statutory systems have as many meaning as there are different meanings and combination of meanings for the words involved. To know what the law is, you have to also know what the law ought to be. Custom in indispensable in this process.

You are confusing publishing license, which was government control over publishing anything, from copyright, which is author control over publishing of their own work. They are two entirely different things, for two entirely different purposes, and existing in parallel for a while. The government gains nothing from copyright, since it gives authors, rather than the government itself, ownership of the work.

Entirely different? Really?

Entirely means in all parts. You just pointed out that they both involve control of publishing. So let me rephrase. The first laws to restrict copying were aimed at censorship.

Remember "The government" doesn't not exist as a discrete rational and acting entity. It's an abstraction and obscures that is really going on. A good number of people with strong influences on those who act officially and unofficially as "the government" do have a great deal to gain from copyright. Or do you claim it is simply a coincidence that copyright terms always increase to include mickey mouse? Those with influence in the status quo love gather whatever sort of mini-monopolies they can to assure their continued influence.

The same could be said of any ownership rights. Customary law has provided people with ownership of their own works for thousands of years. Common law actually did provide people with control over first publication of their works, although not later publications. However, I wouldn't consider that to be a big jump.

Physical goods are scarce and rivalrous as use tends to consume them. Clear claims of control prevent conflict and are preconditions to peace between man and man. No such thing can be said about creative expressions.

Common-law provided control over the physical manuscript. If I then let you read it upon your representation that you won't publish it without my permission, then you are estopped from publishing without permission. Moving control from my copy to all copies owned by anyone is a large jump. People have controlled their own stuff for thousands of years, but not the expressions that may be fixed therein.

Examples, please.

http://www.sics.se/node/7941
Printed matter

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf
Music

You need to justify this. Communism as normally practiced is government ownership of the means of production. In theory it would involve people freely giving others what they need. Neither is remotely similar to copyrights, which is still private ownership

I did. I described the category in the next sentence. There are six statement entailed in placed both in that category. 1. Communism is a (A) rejection of prior custom with (B) an alledged benifit, that is (C) unproven. 2. Same as one A through C, but for copyright.

I didn't say they are they same in all or even most essential qualities. I just said that there are some number of qualities sufficient to define a category containing both concepts, but still excluding of the great majority of concepts. If you want to reject my statement, you should poke at one of the six implied premises of it.

[TheBlackCat]

English common law is but one type of dozens of customary legal systems. For example Ijma is the name give to the customary portion of sharia law. The law merchant, the direct predecessor and template of the uniform commercial code. There are no legal systems anywhere that cannot show customary roots. There is good reason for this. If we go be the words alone statutory systems have as many meaning as there are different meanings and combination of meanings for the words involved. To know what the law is, you have to also know what the law ought to be. Custom in indispensable in this process.

As I said, most legal systems in the world do not put much, if any, weight on customary law. The printed law is what matter. That is a pretty uniquely British practice.

Entirely different? Really?

Entirely means in all parts. You just pointed out that they both involve control of publishing. So let me rephrase. The first laws to restrict copying were aimed at censorship.

That is not rephrasing, that is flat-out changing what you said.

Copyright and censorship are not the same thing, in the same way that government giving licenses to mine on public land and a company not letting other people mine on their own land are not the same thing.

Remember "The government" doesn't not exist as a discrete rational and acting entity. It's an abstraction and obscures that is really going on. A good number of people with strong influences on those who act officially and unofficially as "the government" do have a great deal to gain from copyright. Or do you claim it is simply a coincidence that copyright terms always increase to include mickey mouse? Those with influence in the status quo love gather whatever sort of mini-monopolies they can to assure their continued influence.

That doesn't change the fact that the government preventing speech that hurts the government is not the same thing as companies protecting their financial interests.

Physical goods are scarce and rivalrous as use tends to consume them. Clear claims of control prevent conflict and are preconditions to peace between man and man. No such thing can be said about creative expressions.

So then there should be no laws against counterfeit money, then? The reason is obvious: creative expression loses value if it is copied. Everything loses value if it has no scarcity. This is basic economics.

Common-law provided control over the physical manuscript. If I then let you read it upon your representation that you won't publish it without my permission, then you are estopped from publishing without permission. Moving control from my copy to all copies owned by anyone is a large jump. People have controlled their own stuff for thousands of years, but not the expressions that may be fixed therein.

No, common law proved control over public publishing of the first copy of a work, whether the author made that copy or not.

http://www.sics.se/node/7941
Printed matter

Even the author admitted that there were substantial underlying differences between Germany (which wasn't even a country at the time) and Britain at the time that had nothing to do with copyrights. As far as I can tell Germany had long had a more established printing industry.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf
Music

So every country's output declined during that time, some less than Britain, some more. At best this shows that copyright didn't help that much, but is certainly doesn't show copyright hurt anything, which is your claim. It also ignores the fact that many classical musicians at the time depended on wealthy patrons, and in fact it looks like Beethoven at least (and I would suspect others) kept works commissioned by patrons private for them for a period in order to earn money, which is not that dissimilar from copyright.

And you used present-tense to refer to countries, so I was hoping for contemporary examples. Also, you were talking about freer countries, which neither of these articles address.

I did. I described the category in the next sentence. There are six statement entailed in placed both in that category. 1. Communism is a (A) rejection of prior custom with (B) an alledged benifit, that is (C) unproven. 2. Same as one A through C, but for copyright.

WHAT!? Are you kidding me? There is a hell of a lot more to communism that just "rejection of prior custom".

I didn't say they are they same in all or even most essential qualities. I just said that there are some number of qualities sufficient to define a category containing both concepts, but still excluding of the great majority of concepts. If you want to reject my statement, you should poke at one of the six implied premises of it.

Sorry, I call BS. This was a blatant attempt to demonize the other side's position by drawing the flimsiest imaginable parallel when it matches your own position in far more substantial ways. I could easily name dozens of examples that fit this criteria, yet you pick out one that is generally disliked in the U.S. I bet you are going to tell me how much the Nazis loved copyright next.

[WorBlux]

So then there should be no laws against counterfeit money, then? The reason is obvious: creative expression loses value if it is copied. Everything loses value if it has no scarcity. This is basic economics.

This is only point I'll adress, the other lines feel unproductive.

Money, and other notes, bonds, and securities are specific legal promises. The value has nothing do do with their creativity. It's in its utility for keeping and settling accounts. Many things that have no creative elements whatsoever have been used as money (whiskey and tobacco) and notes drafted thereupon.

The genuineness of a bank note is based on it's source, not on any sort of physical characteristics it possesses. The later are simply indicators of the former. However to adopt appearance to misrepresent the source is fraud.

But you've also implicitly agreed with one on my points. The service that can be derived from an idea is unlimited. Thus they are not scarce and not properly economic goods.

[ворот93]

He can continue eating his nails and not bother us with religious fanaticism.