<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Cláudio Sampaio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:patola@gmail.com" target="_blank">patola@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><span><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Emilio Velis </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif" dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:contacto@emiliovelis.com" target="_blank">contacto@emiliovelis.com</a>></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div><span><div><div>I might want to chip in on the discussion, since there is a lot of acid thrown into copyright alongside a lot of misconceptions.<br><br></div></div></span><span>Now, having said this, there are different theories of copyright. Copyright is philosophically based on the notion of private property, which is a concept existing in all countries as far as I know, and is developed based on different theories, so the fact of the matter here is that you can't just come and say that 1. Copyright is an exclusive term for common law, or that 2. Copyright is slavery without admitting that all forms of private property are also akin to slavery to some degree.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Just as copyleft is based on copyright, being "copyright turned on its head" to mean that it's actually the opposite, </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Copyleft is not the opposite of copyright. Copyleft is exactly the same legal standard. The minor difference is that the license REQUIRES sharing instead of FORBIDS sharing. Normally, people who create value use copyright to forbid other people from freely sharing in the creation without paying for the value. People motivated by open/libre ideas want the value they create to be shared as widely as possible, so they require sharing. That's a pretty minor difference. The only reason either of them work is because the courts enforce the terms of the licenses.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">intellectual "property" is the very opposite of real, private property.</div> <div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">You own your media and you should be allowed to do whatever you wish with it in your private space, or in agreement with others. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The difference between tangible and intangible objects is real, but the concept of "property" is always intangible. Your rights to anything is a compromise with everyone else's rights. For example, it's not unusual for your right to your land (real property) to be compromised to grant someone else the right to cross your land to get to their land. Rights are flexible things.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, and this is important, if you have a license to use something that is not the same (legally speaking) as owning it. Under the terms of a license your right to the value is limited and can be revoked if you violate the license terms. That's WHY copyleft works. The evil, non-sharers who want to take software and hide it aren't legally allowed to do that because they don't own it, they only got a license from the author. Under copyright, the author's right to control the value they created extends to all copies (and derivative works), with a few exceptions, regardless of how far the thing of value travels.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">But you can't, because the overreach of intellectual "property" tries to confiscate the power you have over your own stuff. More details here: <a href="https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0" target="_blank">https://mises.org/library/<wbr>against-intellectual-property-<wbr>0</a></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you get rid of intellectual property then you get rid of free/libre copyleft as well.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Intellectual property also enforces artificial scarcity of non-scarce goods. This is terrible. You create value but cannot fully exploit it, because to conform to closed-minded lack of creativity on how to monetize it, you resort to limit the number of copies that might be made, or limit its scope. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You've got two different things confused. Copyright was invented specifically to help creators exploit the value they created. Copyright places no burden whatsoever on the creator. If you make something you can share it as widely as you want and put zero restrictions on it and charge absolutely nothing for it. But that basically would have happened anyway. Copyright gives the creator the option to tightly control distribution, layer a bunch of requirements, and charge anything they want. THAT is only possible because the courts will back them up when non-creators violate their attempt to exploit the value they created.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As an useful example: I have been looking for ways to implement real curves on open-source 3D software - from slic3r to cura to blender - and found what seems to be the perfect work for it, a work of genius, a mathematical achievement: T-splines. <a href="http://www.tsplines.com/products/what-are-t-splines.html" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr>tsplines.com/products/what-<wbr>are-t-splines.html</a> However, their creators limited the value of this amazing piece of software to two quite limited proprietary products, no doubt under secret private arrangements, and progress on this front is unequivocally halted by decades. Sort of what happened with the FDM and SLA patents, which halted the 3D printing technologies for two decades -- we should already have star trek replicators by now, if it weren't for patent law.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And patents are not copyright. Not even close. If the creators of T-splines had copyright then you'd still be able to do whatever you wanted with the idea of T-splies. A patent is what gives you rights to the use of the idea itself.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that patents have been getting increasingly absurd and destructive. If they actually granted patents based on the rules everything would be fine, but they're handing out patents for vague and speculative nonsense. </div><div><br></div><div>The glut of bad patents is absolutely a problem that's clogging up our systems of innovation. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There are many ways to monetize without intellectual "property" too: <a href="https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property" target="_blank">https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/<wbr>Without_Intellectual_Property</a></div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(53,28,117);font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Do not forget that intellectual "property", due to simply existing, requires an enormous amount of law support, institutions, structures, NGOs and otherwise non-productive stuff - which is sort of "the broken window" in economics, it's wasted money and resources.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That article on "what if we got rid of IP" has an example from the book publishing industry. The assertion is that with copyright there are a whole lot more books published, each of which is a lottery ticket to best seller status.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that's exactly the kind of system we want if we want innovation. There is no way to predict what will be innovative. We have to just try a bunch of stuff and see what clicks. Abolishing copyright would also abolish the long tail of contributions. Only entities that are already powerful enough to exploit their creation would bother to create. Copyright allows the little guy to get the backing of the government so they can compete.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><span>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Cláudio "Patola" Sampaio<br>MakerLinux Labs - Campinas, SP<br></div><div><a href="mailto:patola@gmail.com" target="_blank">Gmail</a> - <a href="mailto:patola@techtraining.eng.br" target="_blank">Mail EAD</a> - <a href="mailto:patola@makerlinux.com.br" target="_blank">MakerLinux</a> - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/makerlinux" target="_blank">YOUTUBE</a>!<br><a href="https://www.facebook.com/patolinux" target="_blank">Facebook</a> - <a href="https://www.facebook.com/makerlinux" target="_blank">Facebook da MakerLinux</a> -<a href="http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4763932Z5" target="_blank"> Lattes</a><br><img src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B8WZj6JJHZDwbmhXNWR6OXlOVDg&revid=0B8WZj6JJHZDwSDhEekpVU2k5K1J4VVdzb1NKU1pKWHZ2NFprPQ"><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</span></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@lists.oshwa.org">discuss@lists.oshwa.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.oshwa.org/<wbr>listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>