(June 24, 2009 at 4:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Well, it's not a *NIX concept, it's a GNU / Creative Commons concept. I am fully aware it is not law, but in my opinion it should be. It enables creativity and when controlled does not infringe the rights of the owner. I don't see what is bollocks about it though. It's worked so far to produce some great software.

Agreed but you're talking about software and in a community where the owners have decided to freely give their work up as is their right ... the fact is that our society is based on other principles and I would be willing to bet that most (if not all) of those people who support copyleft would not allow someone to drive off with their car or use their partner or (and you know I can think of hundreds of examples).

Copyleft and other libertarian principles work all very well in an idealistic scenario but not quite so easily in the real world.

(June 24, 2009 at 4:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm fully in agreement with you. I never said it wasn't a crime. I'm saying there is a difference between copyright breach and a breach in ownership

And my point is that is a criminal activity and that it is, as Padraic says, distinguishable form other kinds of theft only by a matter of degree.

Kyu

(June 24, 2009 at 4:56 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Agreed but you're talking about software and in a community where the owners have decided to freely give their work up as is their right ... the fact is that our society is based on other principles and I would be willing to bet that most (if not all) of those people who support copyleft would not allow someone to drive off with their car or use their partner or (and you know I can think of hundreds of examples).

Like I said before, I think you are simply confusing the concept of stealing with the concept of copyright (or indeed copyleft).

You can put a GNU license on something and still sell it. If someone steals your work, they have broken an ownership right (they have stolen). Someone can pay for the work and then modify it freely though. Concepts of ownership remain, so your hypothetical car problem wouldn't be one. All we are arguing is that if you buy something, you should have the right to modify it and distribute your work.

(June 24, 2009 at 5:04 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 24, 2009 at 4:56 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Agreed but you're talking about software and in a community where the owners have decided to freely give their work up as is their right ... the fact is that our society is based on other principles and I would be willing to bet that most (if not all) of those people who support copyleft would not allow someone to drive off with their car or use their partner or (and you know I can think of hundreds of examples).

Like I said before, I think you are simply confusing the concept of stealing with the concept of copyright (or indeed copyleft).

I don't accept that I am.

Kyu

Well I think I just proved you are by the fact that a copyleft license does not restrict you from selling your product.

I mean just think about it. A person can buy a song (not theft) and then distribute it for free. You could argue that the people receiving the file are stealing, but the person who is distributing is not; he is breaking copyright.

This is why the record companies aim for the people who break the copyright (the filesharers), because they are causing the problem.

Under a copyleft license, a person still has to purchase the copy (otherwise it would be theft), but once they have it they can modify and distribute it (often selling it on again since they need to actually make a profit).

(June 24, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Well I think I just proved you are by the fact that a copyleft license does not restrict you from selling your product. I mean just think about it. A person can buy a song (not theft) and then distribute it for free. You could argue that the people receiving the file are stealing, but the person who is distributing is not; he is breaking copyright.

So you're saying there is a distinction between providing (copyright) and accepting (stealing)?

That would still mean downloading is crime (stealing) which was what my argument with Meatball was about.

Not trying to be funny Adrian but I couldn't give a rat's arse about copyleft ... it isn't law, it has no bearing on the concept and is adopted by a bunch of idealists who STILL rely on the normal theft laws to protect other things they own.

Kyu

(June 25, 2009 at 1:49 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: That would still mean downloading is crime (stealing) which was what my argument with Meatball was about.

I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

(June 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm)Meatball Wrote:

(June 25, 2009 at 1:49 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: That would still mean downloading is crime (stealing) which was what my argument with Meatball was about.

I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

I'm with meatball on this one.....

(June 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm)Meatball Wrote: I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

I think it is entirely up to the owners of the work and if you have not got legal license (from them or their agents) to use their material you are a criminal.

Kyu

Kyu

---

(June 25, 2009 at 2:43 pm)Samson Wrote: I'm with meatball on this one.....

And that makes it correct?

Kyu

(June 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm)Meatball Wrote: I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

I think it is entirely up to the owners of the work and if you have not got legal license (from them or their agents) to use their material you are a criminal.

Kyu

(June 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm)Meatball Wrote: I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

(June 25, 2009 at 4:06 pm)Meatball Wrote:

(June 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I think it is entirely up to the owners of the work and if you have not got legal license (from them or their agents) to use their material you are a criminal.

I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

... and because of that you are a criminal (and it is morally wrong).

Kyu