Re: [LAD] RAUL?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Fons Adriaensen <fons@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - 2:27 pm

--f46d04446b5598826e04b1dae725
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

"This is true even of many physical goods."

No, this is not true with physical goods. I know of no physical good
that has same properties as ideas. A comparison to a car is not
appropriate. A car is a scarce resource.

"Even if the cost of making a copy is trivial, someone still needs
to make the original first and that may not be trivial."

Now this is a valid argument. It is the same as the one I said people
always make - that without some sort of law, giving you monopoly
over your product, you will not be able to create it. Call it motivation,
enabler or whatever.

I think that your example invalidates such a claim though. You did do
complex, very complex code (as you yourself pointed out) without a
monopoly on your work, which you eliminated by using a GPL license.

If your argument is not about motivation at all, but about morality, that it
is immoral to use someone else's labour without paying them, then this is
a separate question altogether and it has little connection to copyright,
actually.
It can be discussed in general terms.

---

Just to give you fellas a framework within which I work out copyright
questions, do
watch this video by Stephan Kinsella. The talk lasts for about 25 minutes,
the
rest is Q&A. If you listen carefully through all of it, you will see where
I am standing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A

--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/

--f46d04446b5598826e04b1dae725
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"This is true even of many physical goods."No, this is no=
t true with physical goods. I know of no physical goodthat has same pro=
perties as ideas. A comparison to a car is notappropriate. A car is a s=
carce resource.
"Even if the cost of making a copy is trivial, someone still needs=

to make the original first and that may not be trivial."Now th=
is is a valid argument. It is the same as the one I said peoplealways m=
ake - that without some sort of law, giving you monopolyover your produ=
ct, you will not be able to create it. Call it motivation,
enabler or whatever.I think that your example invalidates such a cl=
aim though. You did docomplex, very complex code (as you yourself point=
ed out) without amonopoly on your work, which you eliminated by using a=
GPL license.
If your argument is not about motivation at all, but about morality, th=
at itis immoral to use someone else's labour without paying them, t=
hen this isa separate question altogether and it has little connection =
to copyright, actually.
It can be discussed in general terms.---Just to give you fe=
llas a framework within which I work out copyright questions, dowatch t=
his video by Stephan Kinsella. The talk lasts for about 25 minutes, the
rest is Q&A. If you listen carefully through all of it, you will see wh=
ere I am standing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DGZgLJkj6m0A
-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.=
louigiverona.ru/

--f46d04446b5598826e04b1dae725--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:58 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:33 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Mon Nov 14, 10:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Robillard, (Mon Nov 14, 4:38 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 2:10 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Tue Nov 15, 3:19 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Harry van Haaren, (Tue Nov 15, 12:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Tue Nov 15, 4:20 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Nov 15, 8:42 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 12:48 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 10:38 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:40 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:16 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Pedro Alves, (Wed Nov 16, 1:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 11:42 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 11:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Fons Adriaensen, (Wed Nov 16, 2:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 2:27 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 10:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, gene heskett, (Wed Nov 16, 8:33 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:08 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Wed Nov 16, 7:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 8:53 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 9:43 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 9:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 12:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 1:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, David Olofson, (Wed Nov 16, 2:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, hermann, (Wed Nov 16, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Nov 16, 6:41 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Thu Nov 17, 1:11 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Louigi Verona, (Thu Nov 17, 4:44 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, thijs van severen, (Fri Nov 18, 6:47 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 10:35 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Dominique Michel, (Wed Nov 16, 5:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Thorsten Wilms, (Wed Nov 16, 8:29 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Tristan Matthews, (Wed Nov 16, 7:15 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Tue Nov 15, 2:57 am)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:12 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Paul Davis, (Mon Nov 14, 6:28 pm)
Re: [LAD] RAUL?, Iain Duncan, (Mon Nov 14, 6:45 pm)