[H-GEN] Linux games are still proprietory

[Trent WADDINGTON]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 ben.carlyle at invensys.com wrote:

> I would suggest that generally when a venture requires significant time or
> energy input it should be the right of whomever invested the time to
> control access to and operation of the product.


I agree with you here, I'm not against private property.

> Copyright law and
> licencing agreements are ways of extending control over the product to
> cover what occurs to the product after it leaves the hands of the party
> who created it.

i.e., they are a way of controlling the users.  They are a way of
enforcing your will over others, that's not right.

> I don't think there is usually an inherent right to deny
> the wishes of the content creator when a product comes into your hands.

I totally disagree with this statement.  I have the freedom to do anything
I want with the product, no matter who created it, because it is *my*
computer and *my* house and no-one has the right to come into my house and
tell me what to do.  Sorry to get all upity about this, but people
constantly try to dumb down freedom and independance, as if it's nothing
important.

> Perhaps there are circumstances, though. If you need to share some
> software so that your family can eat tonight no court in the world would
> convict you, right?

Or just because you want to be a good neighbour?  Or because it would make
someone you know happy?

> On the other hand if you want to share it because you
> think the content provider doesn't deserve the right to control it's
> creations then perhaps you don't deserve control over what you create,
> either.

I'm not terribly sure anyone's logic goes like that.  It kind of reminds
me of the vegetarians who wont eat meat because they don't think anyone
has a right to kill meat.  It's pretty magical thinking.

> If you want to share it because you think you can make a quick
> buck out of someone else's product then perhaps you're just a theif. If
> you think that you can just take a commercial product and make it "free"
> of your own will and accord, then I suggest that a commercial vendor has
> just as much right to confiscate all existing copies of your free software
> and steal them to make them commerical.

There's a huge argument in here about the difference between theft and
copying which has been gone into so many times before that I won't bother
going into it again.  I don't think unlawful copying == theft, and I don't
think anyone can make a reasonable argument that they are the same.

> The thing that's supposed to keep licencing agreements and requirements of
> copyright law honest is competition. Open source software models offer
> some competition to proprietary software models. Primarily, proprietary
> sofware products offer competition to other proproprietary software
> products. The exception of course is Monopoly, which can exist not just at
> the industry level in software, but at the individual product level. If
> one company controls the only product that can meaningfully make use of
> ".doc" files and controls the information required for competitors (open
> or closed source) to produce meaningful competition then in my opinion
> they should be dealt with very seriously indeed.

Can't disagree here.

> As for shink-wrapped licences... well... you should always be able to get
> a refund if you don't agree to the terms. If one is not forthcoming than I
> would have to describe the retailer who provided the product as criminal.

I agree, although I'd prefer it if people were required to read and sign a
contract in the store, with a person who is authorized to negotiate that
contract.  Contracts are an important part of society and should be
honoured, unfortunately the quasi-contract that we call a "license" has
cheapened them.

> If producers lose the right to control their content's use and
> distribution (or at least lose the right to fair compenstation for their
> work) then we'll simply see less and crappier production over time.

Fair compensation for work is hardly a right.  If I go dig 20 holes I
don't instantly get paid $10 a hole, I have to find someone who is willing
to pay me to dig those holes, *before I dig them*.  Producers have the
same rights as everyone else, to negotiate and enter into contracts with
their fellow citizens, not to adhoc control them after the fact.

> Well,
> I might be wrong. Perhaps a communist reality will step up to replace our
> capitalist reality in some if not all areas of software practice and the
> people will themselves create the content a little at a time out of sheer
> numbers and willpower. That's already been happening with the open source
> world... but I think there's still a commercial reality in there
> somewhere.

And so do the people of the open source world.  Getting paid for your work
does not go away just because you're making your work available for other
people to use, you just have to be a good citizen and convince people to
pay you instead of using the law to force them.

> Anyway, I agree with what I think Robert was saying: that it is
> as morally wrong to force commercial providers who are operating in a
> genuinely competitive environment to use open source licencing against
> their will as it is to force open source developers to use classic
> commerical-style licences against their wills. It's wrong whether you're a
> government telling them what they write in their agreements, and it's
> wrong if you're a user who chooses to ignore the agreements.

As a user I have a right to negotiate with the other party in this
"agreement".  If anyone ever asked me what I wanted the software license
on my favourite game or utility to say it would definitely be different to
what it says now.  Licenses are hardly ever fair and equitable in the
commercial world.

The argument for ignoring a license goes something like this:

1) Either a license is a contract or it isn't.
If a license is a contract,
    2) it is a contract I did not sign,
    3) therefore it is not valid,
    4) so I can ignore it.
5) If a license is not a contract,
    6) excluding contracts, I am not bound to anyone else's will but my
       own,
    7) so I can ignore it.

Copyright law infringes on proposition 6, it says that even though you
have agreed to no contract with another party they can restrict your will.

> Commerical
> providers who do not live in genuinely competitive environments should
> have their licence agreements written by someone more or less independent,
> such as government or the courts. If the government and the courts fail to
> do this then perhaps it really is necessary for the individual to ignore
> the agreements :)

I think a better solution is to decree "licenses" unworkable and maintain
that each and every user of a product sign a contract with the provider of
that product.  Microsoft would say this is not possible because they have
too many users.  Well I say that if it is not possible for Microsoft to
enter into a contract with their users then it is not possible for
Microsoft to stop you from ignoring their "license".  Or more precisely,
if it is possible for Microsoft to stop you from ignoring their "license"
then it is possible for Microsoft to enter into a contract with their
users and make their actions legitimate.

Sorry to the list for the lengthy reply, if this is annoying then perhaps
we should take it elsewhere.

Trent


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/