Re: Lets all be philosophers

From: Static Discharge (top.that_at_sixyoos.com)
Date: 11/22/03 

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:26:50 GMT

Martin Dickopp wrote:
> Static Discharge <top.that@sixyoos.com> writes:
>
>
>>Martin Dickopp wrote:
>>
>>>Static Discharge <top.that@sixyoos.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the law stated that all software had to be free, that would be
>>>>extreme communism.
>>>
>>>Why do you think so? Please elaborate.
>>
>>In communist systems everything belongs to the state. Essentially, that
>>is what would happen if the law stated that all software had to be free.
>>Each person would have equal access without the hindrance of financial
>>circumstances.
>
>
> I see your point. Did you assume that this hypothetic law requires you
> to distribute your software?

No, I assumed that if one did distribute software they would have to
make it free/open by law.

>
> I was thinking along the lines of the GNU GPL, i.e. /if/ you distribute,
> you have to include the source code, but you are not required to
> distribute. Since most software is not distributed, such a law wouldn't
> affect access to software very much.
>

I thought the hypothetical law was stating that all software had to be
free/open, not unlike GNU GPL. My argument was that this would be
extreme communism.

>
>>>If I buy a TV set, I can disassemble it to see how it works. I can use the
>>>knowledge gained in this way to build another TV set. I can even parts of
>>>the TV set to build another device. But I can do none of these things with
>>>software. Copyright law grants companies monopolistic powers which usually
>>>only companies in communistic economies have. The problem is that copyright
>>>law establishes a communistic sub-economy.
>>
>>If I understand the law aright, you cannot use patented designs to build
>>your televisions and distribute or sell them, unless you purchase the
>>rights or the parts from the owner of the patents.
>
>
> Yes, but I was explaining why I think that /copyright law/ has communistic
> properties. Patents and copyright are quite different concepts, so your
> reply does not contradict what I said. :)
>

Quite the opposite. If a person or a group has a copyright this gives
them ownership of the material to do with it what they please. In a
communist system the material automatically belongs to the state and
theoretically to everyone in that state to do with it what they please.
  Experience has shown us that the materials end up belonging to the
bureaucracy.

Relevant Pages

  • Hate crime laws are discriminatory.
    ... Here is a mathematical proof that hate crime laws are discriminatory. ... If the criminal belongs to a minority, and the victim to a majority, ... most of the possible victims belong to the majority. ... The law offers more protection to minorities. ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: mspaint-like application?
    ... You might want to try xpaint, allthough I dislike working with it (but ... There's ``gimp'' which provides extensive image processing ... law takes from some persons what belongs to them, ... See if the law benefits one citizen at ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think
    ... "To the intellectual the social device of capitalism ... The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of ... See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Copyright violoation by Ixorg and SCO
    ... law and a crime is that a majority voted for the law. ... the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, ... the government, and we cannot expect the government to enforce it ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: RIP Anime? "Tokyos Youth Ordinance Bill Approved by Committee"
    ... against this law know it too. ... Sure you can, and the Japanese do. ... to buy these materials, but I'm guessing the store wouldn't have done it. ... that the government - any government - should be making. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)