No one’s forcing you to reply. But we are both repeating ourselves by this point. Obviously we stand on opposite ends of this issue. You will never convince me that piracy is acceptable. And I will never convince you that the creator of a product has the inherent right to dictate how that product is copied and distributed by virtue of being the creator.

By releasing software under the GPL, the software creator is exercising his right as copyright holder to grant that permission to others. The GPL is there to ensure that no one else tries to exploit his generosity so that everyone who gets their hands on that software has the same right.

I have to repeat myself: If copyrights did not exist, there would be no need for the GPL as it is now.

What I am saying is that piracy is wrong because it’s illegal and immoral.

1. Law does not define morality. It’s the other way around.
2. I’ve already refuted the immorality of piracy.

It’s immoral because it is a basic right of the creator to decide if the product can be copied or not. Anytime you violate someone’s rights you are in the territory of immorality.

No, it’s not a basic right. It’s a right granted by law, law that you yourself mentioned is not based on morality.

So by your analogy, anyone buying copyrighted goods should be paying property tax.

Trying to find similarities between tangible and intangible goods cannot be a perfect procedure (which is why claiming they are the same is plain wrong). IP has a value that remains with you, no matter to whom you sell it, unlike a chair or a sofa. It’s more like renting out a house.

How does a person have the right to copy and distribute something that was created by another person, for which he did not pay, without the creator’s consent?

- The good effects outweight the bad.
- Copying and Distributing digital goods do not create a tangible loss for the creator, only a potential loss.
- Distributing without consent is only wrong depending on the context.

No, copyright does not prevent that. It leaves the right with the copyright holder to grant permission for others to copy and distribute, where it should be. By releasing software under the GPL, the software creator is exercising his right as copyright holder to grant that permission to others. The GPL is there to ensure that no one else tries to exploit his generosity so that everyone who gets their hands on that software has the same right.

Copyrights were not created on moral reason, unlike other laws. Copyrights were created to promote creation of new art.

I am not saying that copyright was created for moral reasons. That’s twice now that you’ve said I am. What I am saying is that piracy is wrong because it’s illegal and immoral. It’s illegal because it violates copyright law. It’s immoral because it is a basic right of the creator to decide if the product can be copied or not. Anytime you violate someone’s rights you are in the territory of immorality.

You pay tax for things which have a considerable value, like a car or a house. These things, even though you do not sell them, represent an asset of yours.

Yes, you do. But there are numerous physical items on which you do not pay tax. I don’t see how you can compare software to real estate. It’s more like a TV, a kitchen table, or a sofa, all of which are things on which you do not pay property taxes. Besides which, it is not the producer of property who pays property taxes, but the consumer. So by your analogy, anyone buying copyrighted goods should be paying property tax.

Here we disagree, once more.

Then I would very much like to hear your reason(s). How does a person have the right to copy and distribute something that was created by another person, for which he did not pay, without the creator’s consent?

The GPL does not ‘work around’ copyright. What it does is guarantee that if a copyright holder decides to grant others the right to freely copy, modify, and distribute his software, those others cannot arbitrarily decide to make it closed source or prohibit redistribution. It ensures that anyone getting a copy of the software is free to modify, copy and redistribute it no matter how many times it has been repackaged and modified by the time they get it.

Which is pretty much what copyrights prevent. As I said before, if copyrights did not exist, there would have been no need for the GPL. The only reason it was created is because the copyrights give too much power on the creator and it goes against the four freedoms.

They are wrong both legally and morally.

Copyrights were not created on moral reason, unlike other laws. Copyrights were created to promote creation of new art. There is nothing immoral about violating copyrights as long as this happens.

Now you’re losing me. How often do you pay a chair tax? If you’re talking about a sales tax, that is only waiting for states to enshrine it in law. And the producer of digital products still has to pay the same income tax and other business related taxes that any other entrepreneur has to pay. Regardless, that has no bearing on the right of the producer to charge for his goods.

You pay tax for things which have a considerable value, like a car or a house. These things, even though you do not sell them, represent an asset of yours. Since you insist that intellectual and physical property are the same, it’s only fair to pay taxes for intellectual property assets as well which are possible to provide you with income for 70 years after your demise.

They have every right to do so, since they created the chair.

Here we disagree, once more.

22.

The original chair stays with them. So what? How does that make it right for the rest of the world to copy and distribute it? No one has the right to take something that I am selling, no matter if it is a physical, uncopyable chair or an easily reproduceable series of bits on a computer, without my express consent. As the creator of a product, I decide if it can be freely copied or not. I decide if it can be freely distributed or not. Nothing gives anyone else that right.

If you want to have such power, you should not work with infinite intangible goods. The same laws do not apply to both.

In any case, there is no more point in continuing this discussion as we’re running around in circles and/or chasing red herrings.
I’ll part with you with one final link that you might find interesting.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1350531114.shtml

I have no idea who you are or what you know about the GPL and free software. Besides, this isn’t a technical blog so I can’t expect everyone reading this blog to know what the GPL or free software are. If I’m explaining things that you are familiar with or understand, I’m not lecturing or trying to insult your intelligence.

The GPL was created because copyrgiths are wrong. It is meant to work around copyrights, which is why it’s called copyleft.

From the GPL page:

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

And from the GPLv3:

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice

The GPL does not ‘work around’ copyright. What it does is guarantee that if a copyright holder decides to grant others the right to freely copy, modify, and distribute his software, those others cannot arbitrarily decide to make it closed source or prohibit redistribution. It ensures that anyone getting a copy of the software is free to modify, copy and redistribute it no matter how many times it has been repackaged and modified by the time they get it.

You’re performing a circular argument.

Either argue if it is wrong or not or what the spirits of copyrights. Do not jump constantly from one to the other in order to justify them.

I don’t see where I said ‘Copyrights say so because distribution is wrong’. These reasons are not exclusive of each other. What I’ve been arguing is that distributing someone else’s work is wrong because copyright law says so and because it’s immoral. Just as stealing is wrong because it’s illegal and immoral. They are wrong both legally and morally.

Consumer rights trump developer rights however.

Sure, when it comes to price gouging and fair treatment. But the consumer does not have the right to take for free that which the producer has made available for cost.

You pay taxes for the rest of your (tangible) property, it’s only fair that you’ll pay taxes for IP as well.

Now you’re losing me. How often do you pay a chair tax? If you’re talking about a sales tax, that is only waiting for states to enshrine it in law. And the producer of digital products still has to pay the same income tax and other business related taxes that any other entrepreneur has to pay. Regardless, that has no bearing on the right of the producer to charge for his goods.

Someone can sell you the source code, but cannot stop you from giving it for free from then on.

I was talking about the software itself, not the source. You can charge as much as you’d like for the software. And actually, your first assertion about the source being both free and gratis were correct. You can only charge for the source in order to cover the costs of copying and shipping it to someone. If it’s available for download, it has to be gratis. See section 6b of the GPLv3.

No, but they will also not have the right to complain that people are copying and distributing that chair without their consent.

They have every right to do so, since they created the chair.

You see, the actual, original chair, stays with them but everyone in the world can now easily have a perfect handcrafted chair for free.

The original chair stays with them. So what? How does that make it right for the rest of the world to copy and distribute it? No one has the right to take something that I am selling, no matter if it is a physical, uncopyable chair or an easily reproduceable series of bits on a computer, without my express consent. As the creator of a product, I decide if it can be freely copied or not. I decide if it can be freely distributed or not. Nothing gives anyone else that right.

Source code under the GPL is always gratis and libre

Correction. Someone can sell you the source code, but cannot stop you from giving it for free from then on.

You cannot copy and distribute a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. That’s why people get sued for plagiarism and why people who profit above a certain monetary amount by selling copyrighted work without consent are tried in criminal court.

You’re performing a circular argument.

*Distributing is wrong because copyrights say so
*Copyrights say so because distribution is wrong.

Either argue if it is wrong or not or what the spirits of copyrights. Do not jump constantly from one to the other in order to justify them.

Copyright are about promoting the creation of new intellectual works. As long as that is done better without copyrights, then the purpose of copyrights is obsolete.

‘Free’ software is free as in ‘libre’, not necessarily free as in ‘gratis’

…I can’t believe you presumed to give me a lecture about what free software is…

To cut a long story short. The GPL was created because copyrgiths are wrong. It is meant to work around copyrights, which is why it’s called copyleft.
If copyrights did not exist, there would be no need for the GPL.

Oh, and no. The original creator of GPL work cannot decide if it’s gratis or commercial. Source code under the GPL is always gratis and libre.
GPL is GPL. If you create a game with GPL and distribute it, I can take the code, as it is, compile it and sell it and you can’t do anything about it.

If no one buys their content, they’ll either change their business model or go out of business. That’s how free markets work. The intentional copying and distribution of content which the copyright holder expressly does not want copied and distributed without consent is not the work of free market forces, but a blatant disregard of producer rights. Consumers aren’t the only ones with rights, you know.

Consumer rights trump developer rights however.

It absolutely is the same

Really? So how much taxes are you paying for your intellectual property?
You pay taxes for the rest of your (tangible) property, it’s only fair that you’ll pay taxes for IP as well.

If the day ever comes when we can reproduce, atom for atom, that handcrafted chair, do all producers of physical goods lose their right to profit from their work as well?

Funny that you brought this example.
No, but they will also not have the right to complain that people are copying and distributing that chair without their consent. You see, the actual, original chair, stays with them but everyone in the world can now easily have a perfect handcrafted chair for free.
The poor chair designer is going to go out of business unless he finds another business model. The whole world benefits from zero cost homemade chairs.

And that’s why this problem won’t go away. Too many people think it’s OK to steal.

Well, I can’t convince you to stop shooting yourself in the foot so I guess I’d better stop wasting time.

You cannot copy and distribute a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. That’s why people get sued for plagiarism and why people who profit above a certain monetary amount by selling copyrighted work without consent are tried in criminal court.

Once again, I direct you to the Free Software movement. They are giving their work away for free and request nothing.

‘Free’ software is free as in ‘libre’, not necessarily free as in ‘gratis’. The poster child of free software licenses is the GPL. It does not prohibit charging for software, but requires that the source be available with the executable. The free part comes from allowing anyone to modify the source, package it up anew, and distribute it how they like (free or for a price) as long as they, too, adhere to the terms of the license. As a result, the GPL is also the most polarizing of the open source licenses.

Regardless, the original copyright owner retains the copyright to the original source. The GPL explicitly requires that the original copyright notice be maintained in all derivative works. The important part is that it is the copyright owner who gets to decide if that original work is ‘gratis’ or commercial. The license establishes the right of consumers of GPL software to modify and redistribute it.

I’m not arguing that copyright owners don’t have the right to distribute their content gratis, nor that they shouldn’t allow others to copy and distribute it themselves. I’m arguing that it is a choice. Those who choose to profit from their work while prohibiting others from distributing it also have that right. If no one buys their content, they’ll either change their business model or go out of business. That’s how free markets work. The intentional copying and distribution of content which the copyright holder expressly does not want copied and distributed without consent is not the work of free market forces, but a blatant disregard of producer rights. Consumers aren’t the only ones with rights, you know.

If you are trying to shift the paradigm that people should be paying what the content producer requires, then you’ve already lost the game. You feel that as a content producer you should be the one that sets the price and this is indeed how it works with tangible & scarce goods. It is not the same as infinite immaterial goods however.

It absolutely is the same. How is it that the craftsman who handcrafts a wooden chair is entitled to sell his creations to support himself but the author of a book, or the creator of a video game, is not? Are you going to tell me that because some goods can be reproduced bit for bit, the people who create those goods have no right to charge for it? If the day ever comes when we can reproduce, atom for atom, that handcrafted chair, do all producers of physical goods lose their right to profit from their work as well?

I dissagree. You should have the right to distribute copies to others.

And that’s why this problem won’t go away. Too many people think it’s OK to steal.

This implies, to me, that the consumer has the right to dictate how content is distributed and used. And this is the heart of the issue. What gives the consumer such a right[…]Consumers who copy and distribute without permission are violating the spirit of copyright just as much as the heavyhanded corporations who implement draconian DRM measures.

Once again, how content is distributed is outside the scope of copyrights. Copyrights were not created to define who can distribute what but rather limited who could distribute (in a time where distribution was rather difficult) in order to boost creativity.
If your question is if content providers should be paid for their work, then I agree that they should. At that point it becomes a philosophical issue on how to shift the paradigm so that people who enjoy a piece of work are willing to support it.

Once again, I direct you to the Free Software movement. They are giving their work away for free and request nothing. However in a moral ethical society, anyone who used free software would donate what the software was worth to him. Even 1$ from every user should be quite sufficient in the long run.

If you are trying to shift the paradigm that people should be paying what the content producer requires, then you’ve already lost the game. You feel that as a content producer you should be the one that sets the price and this is indeed how it works with tangible & scarce goods. It is not the same as infinite immaterial goods however.
If urge you to fight for increasing awareness but in a way that will benefit both you (if you will let it) and the world.

In a perfect world, consumers would respect the right of producers and there’d be no need for alternative business models or DRM. But as long as consumers believe they somehow have the right to freely distribute the fruits of someone else’s labor, things are going to get worse for all. Alternative business models do not always work in the interest of the consumer.

In a perfect world, content producers would be happy to allow distribution in the hands of the consumers and consumers would be ethical enough to support the content producers they enjoy.

You keep asserting that things will only get worse for all if this continues but you have not backed it up.

But you should not have the right to distribute copies to others without the copyright owner’s permission, as that then becomes distribution.

I dissagree. You should have the right to distribute copies to others.

This implies, to me, that the consumer has the right to dictate how content is distributed and used. And this is the heart of the issue. What gives the consumer such a right? I agree that producers need to find alternative business plans in order to meet the shifting market demands. That’s what this post is about after all. But the right to determine when and how a copyrighted work can be copied and distributed should always belong to the producer, no matter the business model. Consumers who copy and distribute without permission are violating the spirit of copyright just as much as the heavyhanded corporations who implement draconian DRM measures.

In a perfect world, consumers would respect the right of producers and there’d be no need for alternative business models or DRM. But as long as consumers believe they somehow have the right to freely distribute the fruits of someone else’s labor, things are going to get worse for all. Alternative business models do not always work in the interest of the consumer.

Draconian DRM is on one end of the spectrum, piracy on the other. Both extremes are wrong. The middle is where we need to be, where producers respect the right of consumers to freely use the content they purchase (no more of the ridiculous concept of ‘licensing’ content) while consumers respect the right of producers to choose how their content is to be distributed. If you want to copy music you have legally purchased to multiple computers and devices that you own, you should have that right. But you should not have the right to distribute copies to others without the copyright owner’s permission, as that then becomes distribution.