From: Michael Stutz <stutz@dsl.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 05:16:10 +0800
To: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Copyright / Re: Dr. Dobbs Cryptography and Security CD-ROM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970702180139.648A-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.970702164600.10082B-100000@seka.nacs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Paul Bradley wrote:

> >   Technology may well enable us to take the product and give
> > nothing in return to those who made it available, but doing so
> > will not further our own beliefs and aims to any extent.
> 
> Again, this is the right way to think of "intellectual property", not as 
> real tangiable property which can, or even should be protected, but as a 
> bond of trust between provider and end user, if you rip off a copy of my 
> s/w and decide you like it, why not buy a copy? The same is true of 
> music, source code, hard-copy books etc...

This is why I favor copylefting all information, software and otherwise. If
a computer program is copyrighted it cannot be easily shared or improved,
while copyleft encourages this. Same for music, texts and other works -- if
a song is released under the terms of the GNU GPL or similar copyleft, I am
free to copy and modify that song as I see fit, which includes making DATs,
burning my own CDs and performing improvisations to the song (whose
transcriptions could be likened to its "source code," of which I am free to
improve upon as I see fit). The artist can be supported by purchasing hard
copy of the music (CDs etc) from her/him, as well as posters, t-shirts and
other paraphernalia (as well as outright donation), but I am no longer
restricted by the scourge of copyright law and the fictitious construct of
"intellectual property" in my thoughts and communications about the work; I
am free to share my thoughts and communications with others.


Michael Stutz
http://dsl.org/m/