Darl FUDs again
Apparently encouraged by the warm reception to his December letter, SCO Group CEO Darl McBride has now been writing letters to members of Congress. This is a template of a letter he is apparently distributing generally throughout Washington. Like his last letter, this one too has no relation to the truth. Indeed, it is even more extreme than the last.
I've addressed one issue that recurs in this missive here. But the core argument of this letter is policy, not constitutional law. Turns out McBride is just as bad at policy as he is at constitutional law.
McBride writes: "Those who designed the GPL readily admit that they created this license to have the effect of 'freeing' software -- taking it out of the realm of copyright protection by placing it in the public domain." Actually, of course, GPL'd software is not in the public domain. It is copyrighted material governed by the GPL. There are important examples of creative work that is in the public domain. TCP/IP for example. (Oh no, Mr. Bill! The Internet is unconstitutional!)
"The GPL is carefully designed to have a viral effect -- it "frees" the software that is proprietary..." Wrong again. There's no way under the license that GPL can free "proprietary" code, unless the copyright owner chooses to free the proprietary code. McBride says that choice is unconstitutional. But if such code is freed, it is not because of the GPL.
SCO of course asserts that at least part of GNU/Linux is "stolen." While we don't yet know exactly what part he thinks is "stolen," he apparently believes it is a significant portion. As he writes, "Why would someone license UNIX code from SCO ... when they can get much of that same code for free..." "Much of that same code"? How much exactly?
"Each Open Source [sic] installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected software." The mistakes here a many. First, and again, GPL'd software is "licens[ed] and copyright-protected software." So what McBride means to say is that each "open source [sic] installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary" software. That's true, but I thought economies grew through efficiency, not unnecessarily high prices. The modern brand of mercantilism that McBride promotes was disproved in economics by Marshall a century ago. By the same reasoning, McBride should be arguing that the Internet destroyed value -- because its non-proprietary protocols displaced, e.g., Novell's and Microsoft's and IBM's protocols. That argument too is silly.
"Congress has repeatedly dealt with the tough issues of predatory pricing and "dumping." I contend that the ultimate predatory price is 'free.'" Oops. There goes Microsoft's support. Is Internet Explorer too unconstitutional?
"The SCO GRoup has met with several U.S. government agencies. We have been encouraged to see that, unique among the organizations with which we've met, most government agencies understand the implications of SCO's case." This really is terrifying, though cluelessness in government about these issues is nothing new.
"The GPL ... should not be allowed to continue to undermine the foundation of one of our most important industries." Should not be "allowed"? Is the Bush Administration now contemplating banning GPL?
That the president of failing company would be driven to utter such silliness is of course nothing new. (See, e.g., the annual reports of Enron). But if there are members of this government that take this malarky seriously, then indeed we are in serious trouble.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (30)
I hope that people reading this are motivated to write their own congressmen and senators to counter some of the McBride misinformation. It is terrifying but true that most of the legislators on Capitol Hill understand neither computers (the DMCA) or copyright (the Sonny Bono Act). God help us if Darl McBride is their only source.
I understand that here you are primarily addressing the legalistic aspects of his claims. However, it is worth pointing out that the assertion open source [sic] installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary software is bogus on economic grounds. There is a presumption (similar to that seen in many copyright infringement claims) that the person who installed free GPL software did so in place of installing proprietary software which they purchased. However, in a significant number of cases the alternative was not a purchase but simply to forego installing the software at all. Different people place different values on particular uses of particular piece of software, and even a single person may place different values on different uses. If this were not the case, you wouldn't see so many companies using differential pricing schemes to try to segment the market. McBride overreaches in presuming that each installation represents a potential loss to him; some may, but many clearly don't.
It shocks me that the allegations Darl is marking against the Linux community and has yet to prove are being stated here as fact. For example, see top of second paragraph, page 2.
IBM v SCO, among other things, is a battle to prove whether or not IBM put SCO code into Linux (to simplify). No court has ruled on the matter.
It is sickening really. If I was an American (I am Australian), I would be doing my upmost to correct this mistake of fact.
the base assumption with the GPL is that the copyright owner herself chooses this form of copyright. if it's her creation, she should be able to do with it what she wants. no problem, not even from us pro-private property three blind mice.
if other copyrighted material is incorporated into software released under the GPL, against the creator's wishes, well then this is another issue altogether. but this has nothing to do with the GPL per se. as far as we can tell it is a violation of principles behind the GPL.
it is this issue which is apparently at the core of the SCO litigation against IBM - that some of their code has been incorporated into linux without their permission or consent.
if this has happened then this is a violation of the law and damages should be awarded to SCO. this is for the court to decide, but it is probably premature for the penguin crowd to assume that this has not happened:
1. rule 11 of the FRCP. would david boies expose himself to sanction if there was not a reasonably valid basis for the lawsuit? according to the rules, SCO isn't allowed to file suit and fish for information ex post facto. the CAFC affirmed in the case of judin v. united states (110 F. 3rd 780 Fed. Cir. 1997) that Rule 11 “is not about after-the-fact investigation.” the reasonable assumption would be that SCO has a colourable argument. whether or not they will prevail remains to be seen, but assuming at this point that their charges are totally without merit is probably unwise.
2. SCO claims their code is proprietaty thus it is reasonable to assume that the judge has placed all of this under protective order. just because IBM's GROKLAW site doesn't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
the unauthorized incorporation of patented and copyrighted material into open source code is a trojan horse which threatens the future of open source software. SCO is but a ripple in an ocean of problems for open source programmers. this is not to advocate one side or the other, merely to point out that denying a problem exists, doesn't make it go away.
the real juicy battles are yet to come. microsoft didn't hire licensing genius marshall phelps away from IBM for no reason....
one interesting part of SCO's letter was the part about national security... here, mcbride has something to hang his hat on. US export controls are pretty clear what can and cannot be exported without a license. "free software" or not, the law is the law and open source has to deal with this as well. this is the interesting bit because linux effectively avoids export control if it is not downloaded from a US server. if the flag waving, fear mongering republicans get it in their mind to do something to hinder this, one can only imagine the result!
three blind mice is incorrect when he refers to SCO litigation against IBM as pertaining to copyrights. SCO has always said that it is about contracts.
SCO has always acknowledged that IBM owns copyrights on the software technology (JFS, RCU and NUMA) that it has contributed to Linux. SCO argues that IBM violated its Unix source license with SCO when it contributed this source code to Linux, because that code also in AIX, "a derivative of Unix".
SCO needs a very broad/viral definiition of what constitutes a derivate work, while IBM argues for a much narrow (and logicall) definiton.
IBM's counter-suit against SCO is about copyrights(and other things). In particular, that SCO has been distributing Linux, which contains IBM copyright works licensed under the GPL, and SCO's requirement that Linux users purchase an additional license from SCO violates GPL.
Groklaw is not connected with IBM in any way other than they are the target of the lawsuit that Groklaw is covering. Groklaw is PJ's site which began as a personal blog and without any advertising but solely through word of mouth has grown into a key site covering technology and the law. Yet it is still PJ behind it all, now coupled with the excellent comments of the Groklaw community. There is no corporate sponsorship. It's just one person's views of the nexus of legal news and tech.
In that, it is an excellent example of the principles of Open Source in action. One person made a huge difference.
In my opinion, three blind mice has a number of errors of fact in his comments.
the base assumption with the GPL is that the copyright owner herself chooses this form of copyright.
The GPL is not a form of copyright. Copyrighted material in the USA use a common set of laws. The GPL is a form of license that is applied to a copyrighted work.
it is reasonable to assume that the judge has placed all of this under protective order
There is no reason to assume anything. The protective order is public information and the TIFF is available from the court and the text is available from Groklaw. Either party is allowed to mark a document as confidential, but either party may challenge the designation.
...just because IBM’s GROKLAW site....
Groklaw is not an IBM site, it is an independant site operated by Pamela Jones (PJ), a paralegal with an interest in Linux and Free/Open Source software.
this is the interesting bit because linux effectively avoids export control if it is not downloaded from a US server.
There is nothing interesting about it. You can readily buy copies of Microsoft Windows outside the country, just as easily as you can Linux. Many major proprietary software vendors have programmers on staff in other countries, who have full access to the source code. There is nothing special to Linux here.
There's a typo in the headline, you misspelled "lies" as "fuds".
the base assumption with the GPL is that the copyright owner herself chooses this form of copyright.
The GPL is not a form of copyright. Copyrighted material in the USA use a common set of laws. The GPL is a form of license that is applied to a copyrighted work.
thanks fuzzy, you are correct. we should have said "form of copyright license." the rest of our comments remain unchanged.
Groklaw is not an IBM site, it is an independant site operated by Pamela Jones (PJ), a paralegal with an interest in Linux and Free/Open Source software.
an interest? how about an obsession?
or perhaps she is paid to do it.....
three months or so ago a whois search showed the GROKALW site was registered to GROKLAW in white plains, new york - which is also the town where one of the IBM attorneys involved in this case is located (from FINDLAW):
Donald J. Rosenberg
Firm: IBM Corporation
Address: 44 S. Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601-4425
mr. rosenberg's name appears on at lease one of the court documents in this case.
an aticle in forbes magazine reports that "Pamela Jones, is a White Plains, N.Y. paralegal."
now the host is a proxy company in arizona where, perhaps coincidentally, IBM's intellectual property department has its headquarters.
not a smoking gun, not hard evidence, but it does make the mice think there is something that smells fishy about all of this.
hasn't it occured to you that it is rather odd how pamela jones (if that is her real name) gains such quick access to all of the court material? one possible explanation is that she is working for mr. rosenberg.
IBM is a brilliant, cut-throat company. the case between SCO and IBM is nominally a matter between IBM and SCO, but what IBM have done with their GROKLAW site is to make this a battle between SCO and Linux.
the GROKLAW site may be just another way IBM exploits the labors of the open source community and gets them to work for free.
just because IBM is on the "right" side of the battle against SCO does not make them the good guys, nor does it mean that they have the interests of the open source community at heart.
the only sure bet is that IBM cares more about its bottom line than they do about open or free software.
trust them at your own peril.
Stop your slander, three blind mice. PJ does not work for IBM, does not work for Mr. Rosenberg, IBM is not behind Groklaw, and PJ does not get paid for doing her work for Groklaw.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You can call me a karma whore if you want.
Please copy and distribute Let's Put SCO Behind Bars.
It has a Creative Commons license.
Thank you for your attention. -- Mike
Stop your slander, three blind mice. PJ does not work for IBM, does not work for Mr. Rosenberg, IBM is not behind Groklaw, and PJ does not get paid for doing her work for Groklaw.
slander? strong words nate. can you offer any proof? we have provided some indications that suggest there may be a connection, can you support your statement with anything other than strongly worded assertions?
the worst thing one can do in litigation is to let one's emotions get in the way of calm, rational thought.
our guess (and yes it is only a guess) is that IBM indeed has a problem and they need information showing the Caldera code which was placed into Linux was already in the public domain, or otherwise not proprietary to SCO.
what better way to do this than to set up a site such as GROKLAW which galvanizes the rookery and sets them running about flapping their stubby wings looking for something with which to kill SCO.
it is, however, not entirely clear why IBM would not be honest about this. our guess (again) would be that IBM doesn't want to be put in the situation where they would have to pay for the information. a knockout document showing the Caldera code now in Linux was in the public domain would be worth tens of millions to IBM.
if GROKLAW is, as you say nate, not connected to IBM why NOT? what is IBM doing to find this information? could it be that PJ herself trolling for information she will sell to IBM?
there are some things about this case which do not add up.
on the other side of this coin, darl mcbride is clearly not the world's smartest man, but he seems to be very good at getting his opponents to see red with letters such this written to the US congress.
ask yourself... how does writing letters like this one help SCO's case against IBM? it would seem to us that it doesn't help at all. all it does is inflame the open source crowd and sets them up for a huge, potentially fatal, fall IF SCO prevails.
sorry if this makes us trolls! all we are saying is to look a little deeper at what is doing on here and do not be distracted by the red capes which SCO flashes in front of your eyes or deceived by the illusions which IBM tries to create.
trusting IBM is no wiser than trusting Microsoft.
I don't trust IBM, and tomorrow they could turn out to be on the wrong side of an issue as they have been in the past. It just happens that on this issue they are, due to self-interest, in the right. Good, I'm glad to have their firepower to take on the SCOs of the world.
I've been reading Groklaw since it began as a personal blog without any audience. I've met PJ. I've seen the Groklaw operation, and it is a one-person show. That's what one paralegal who believes in FOSS can do. That it happens to help IBM is coincidental and based on where IBM found itself in the case. PJ is a principled person who writes what she bellieves. And she does research for a living, so she is good at it. I'm just glad the FOSS world has someone like that to offer their help at a time when it was needed. It's similar, in some ways, to what Linus did. One person made a difference and now Linux is a huge deal around the world. You don't have to look for conspiracies to explain how one person can start a revolution.
SCO is directly attacking the Linux community. First off, they wanted all Linux users, not just corporate ones, to pay their "special offer" of a $699 license. Secondly they are stating that code Linus and other non-IBM engineers wrote is owned by them. Third, how are their attacks on the GPL not a battle between SCO and F/OSS?
Currently there is nothing for IBM to prove! SCO has not shown anything in the way of evidence that supports their claims. The only code we have seen that they presented has already been proven to be from BSD and not proprietary. IBM is innocent 'til proven guilty.
slander? strong words nate. can you offer any proof?
Should not the burden of proof reside firmly upon the diminuitive shoulders of the mice?
SCO's contractual dispute with IBM doesn't really concern me. That they (SCO) are now lobbying Congress is a positive sign, IMHO.
Gandhi summed it up quite succinctly when he said:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
The important work that must be done is figuring out how to apply copyright law to the Internet without unduly disrupting fair use. DRM is not the answer, and Professor Lessig's mitigative strategy of The Creative Commons is but a finger in the dike of the dam of "intellectual property" law which is collapsing around us.
SCO's case generally, and Groklaw conspiracy theories specifically, are nothing more than feeble attempts to detour the course of human nature. Had the Internet been around in early 20th century, I wouldn't be surprised to see the chief of a horse-and-buggy company vilifying Henry Ford online.
Change is inevitable; how we choose to confront change is what's most important.
--Jason
I’ve met PJ. I’ve seen the Groklaw operation, and it is a one-person show.
nate, thank you for your clarification. we will accept this on your word alone. please extend our apologies to ms. jones for questioning the sanctity of her sainthood.
Gandhi summed it up quite succinctly when he said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
jason, ghandi was assassinated.
SCO’s case generally, and Groklaw conspiracy theories specifically, are nothing more than feeble attempts to detour the course of human nature.
detour the course of human nature? what course are you talking about jason?
2500 years ago, long before the copyright laws were created, thucydides, the greek historian who chronicled the peloponnesian wars, demanded that his work never be copied without his express permission; he believed it should be “a possession for ever” for he did not want to see his accurate record of history distorted by scribes.
in the course of human history, TCP/IP is just a new form of papyrus.
human nature is to claim ownership of one’s own creations and to seek to control them.
it is denying this which is the detour.
Off Topic rant, spiel, pitch... what have you:
Why Support Howard Dean...?
Ever since former Vermont Governor Howard Dean entered the race for president two years ago, he has been the leader in setting the debate. Dean stood up to George W. Bush when few others would and pressed other Democrats to do so as well. Howard Dean has energized the base of the Democratic Party, and as the candidate of hope, vision, courage, and experience, has created a real chance for at victory for working people in 2004...
Dean Delivers Health Care
While other candidates endlessly talk about healthcare, Howard Dean, who is also a medical doctor, has delivered it. While Governor of Vermont, Dr. Dean provided healthcare coverage for 99% of children under 18, for low- and middle-income families, for seniors and the disabled, and for expectant mothers in the state. He also required that mental illness and substance abuse receive the same coverage that serious physical illness does. Gov. Dean also provided a prescription drug coverage program for seniors and the disabled while Congress talked about it. Because of a strong commitment to helping seniors live productive lives at home, Gov. Dean shifted funds from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care, so more seniors could live with dignity in their own homes. Gov. Dean's vision for the future includes an effective and practical kind of social responsibility. His Success By Six program in Vermont places a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, with visits to the homes of all new parents who request help (91% do). This long-term vision is designed to help prevent child abuse, which has dropped 45%, which in the long run, creates healthy, productive, fully functional family support that will keep these children out of prison when they grow up. Gov. Dean did all this, while balancing the budget, cutting taxes and not by slashing funding for education, police, fire departments and other vital services.
Job Creation and Fiscal Responsibility
In his eleven-year tenure as Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean created 20% more good-paying jobs, lowered the unemployment rate, and raised the minimum wage. He also balanced the budget year after year--and he did so while cutting taxes twice, responsibly, and while providing funding for health care, school reform, and the protecting the environment. When Gov. Dean took office in 1991, he inherited a record deficit. When he left office eleven years later, he left the state with a record surplus and a solid rainy day fund in case of an economic down-turn. Because of Gov. Dean's fiscal management skills, he was able to pay down the debt and take Vermont from the lowest bond rating in New England to the highest. With the Bush Administration giving trillions of dollars of irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy and shifting the taxes to state and local governments while charging it to our children and grandchildren in the form of debt, the country is going to need an experienced fiscal manager to pull us back from the brink of economic disaster.
The (right kind of) Money to Win
On January 1, 2004, the Dean campaign announced another quarter of record-breaking fund-raising, citing $15.38 million for the fourth quarter of 2003. This put Dean at $40.78 million for the year. But with nearly 300,000 contributors and an average contribution of under $100, Dean is not beholden to special interests or fat-cat donor, but to us, the people. In addition he can go back to the well again and again. It's a source of funding that is unlikely to dry up, making a 50-state primary strategy possible to fight for restoring American prosperity to everyone. In addition, in a savvy general election strategy, the Dean campaign decided to forgo matching funds. Giving up this public financing will make Gov. Dean financially competitive with George W. Bush and his millions of dollars from fat-cat special interests. By opting out of the tax funded campaign system, the Dean campaign is not required to adhere to limiting primary spending limits - limits that would surely cripple any Democratic presidential campaign by March of 2004 and allow Bush to attack our candidate without the ability to respond. With Gov. Dean's proven record of balancing budgets, expanding healthcare and creating jobs, they had better worry. Everyday people, when they learn who Gov. Dean is, and look at his record will see that he is a REAL leader and support him.
You should too.
The above is from a new two-sided flyer "Tired of affordable healthcare?" which is part of the "Re-Select Bush" guerrilla campaign I have up on my Gore4Dean website. (http://www.gore4dean.com/why.html)
This piece shows on one side, Washington/Bush's failure to address the serious issue of affordable healthcare. The back has the above copy which lays out the solid record and real reasons why everyone should support Howard Dean. PLEASE download and distribute it as far and as wide as possible.
p.s. if you are so inclined to donate to Dean for America, please consider hitting the bat via my Dean Team bat on my website for the effort.
Regarding the comment made by "three blind mice"
saying that it is the human nature to claim
ownership and control over the works:
While this is an interesting philosophical statement,
I have to point out that the Nature does not agree
with it for it has provided the humans the means
to copy works done by others. Humans may be
selfish but Nature has decreed that works becoming
commons ultimately matters.
If interested in my long rant, see:
https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/Message/3338900.html
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
I have to point out that the Nature does not agree
with it for it has provided the humans the means
to copy works done by others. Humans may be
selfish but Nature has decreed that works becoming
commons ultimately matters.
joseph pietro riolo, this is an equally interesting philosphical statement.
this is off topic, but worthy of response.
a child may be provided in nature the ability to copy the speech of her mother, but are not papyrus scrolls, the codex, the printing press, lithography, photostatic reproduction, and digital reproduction each human inventions not provided for in nature?
is it not also true that how these devices are used, and for what purpose, are also inventions of man?
it is a callous misrepresentation of our statement regarding human nature to cast it in the light that control=selfishness.
was thucydides being selfish by demanding to control copies of his history, or was he doing a service to mankind by making sure that history was not changed by unscrupulous scribes with a political agenda?
was the athenian government being selfish when it decreed in 338 BCE that all performances of the works of aeschylus, sophocles, and euripides were to be done under the state auspices so that actors could not deviate or take liberties with the roles? were the athenians restricting "fair use," or were they protecting the core values of their culture and the truth and beauty of their art?
control over creative works is essential to the artist's control over her expression. copyright is essential to maintaining the purity of art, culture... and factual information.
if you allow yourself to step away from your anti-intellectual property bias, you may see that human inventions such as copyright and digital rights management are as much a benefit to "the commons" as a perceived evil.
do not attach the label "selfish" to the pro-copyright arguments of the three blind mice.
if this label is to be applied, it is most appropriately pinned to the chests of the "commons" zealots who cannot see beyond their own selfish downloading interests.
it is ye who would sacrifice "the commons" in the name of enhancing it.
The three blind mice ask, "was thucydides being selfish by demanding to control copies of his history, or was he doing a service to mankind by making sure that history was not changed by unscrupulous scribes with a political agenda?"
Thucydides wasn't "demanding to control copies of his history" - he was expressing the pious hope that his history of the Peloponnesian War would contain some eternal verities, and would thus become "a possession for all time."
NOT "his possession for all time."
As Thucydides is still being studied and appreciated two and a half thousand years later, I think he's doing pretty well...
nick b, you are confusing our point with your semantic clarification.
unless history is preserved as written, any eternal truths contained within are lost, or worse, distorted. the question is then, is thucydides doing as well as you say, or was his voice long ago silenced by someone else's idea of "fair use?"
in this age of deceipt and deception, does not the author's control of his original text remain as relevant and vital an issue today as it was to thucydides?
or does it just get in the way of all that free downloading?
No author can ever have indefinite control of the sanctity of his authorship, can he? Perhaps if Thucydides had digitally signed his history we wouldn't have to worry about matters. Ah, but then we have to trust the integrity of the public key passed down through the ages, don't we?
If only we had such a receipt, we might be able to definitively detect such deceit.
Failing that, if the cure for bad speech is more speech, surely the cure for distortions of an author's work is corrective scholarship and presentation of justificatory evidence.
TBM posits: hasn’t it occured to you that it is rather odd how pamela jones (if that is her real name) gains such quick access to all of the court material?
Nate responds: I’ve met PJ.
That was an attempt to address TBM's parenthetical comment - Pamela Jones exists and is not a pseudonym.
I would like to address the rest of the comment by pointing out that it is not odd to gain quick access to court material. That was the whole reason the government has been setting up systems to help distribute court materials in electronic form. If you go to the IBM Timeline on Groklaw you will find a pointer to the Utah District Court SCOvIBM web page. Many of the documents can be found here and are generally placed on the court website within 24-48 hours.
Some documents are also made available from SCO itself on the SCO website. Check the SCO page on the SCOvIBM suit.
In addition, if you had been reading Groklaw you would find that many of the documents not available from the court website are picked up in person by other readers on Groklaw. Readers such as Frank Sorenson, whose website has pointers to the documents.
This is why it sometimes takes days or weeks for some documents to appear. They are not always "quick" to appear, but Pamela and other volunteers strive to provide timely updates.
TBM posits: if GROKLAW is, as you say nate, not connected to IBM why NOT? what is IBM doing to find this information? could it be that PJ herself trolling for information she will sell to IBM?
I am sorry but there really is no way to reply to accusations such as this. And just phrasing something as a question does not make them less of a problem. Making inferences like this, which cannot be answered, is a classic "troll". I am sorry to see such items appear but not surprised.
If you truly believe there to be an issue, why not just ask Pamela Jones? Her e-mail address is available on the Groklaw website. If you feel that something she says is not valid, please gather evidence and present some form of verifiable or at least testable statements.
Unless you are reading Thucydides in the original ancient Greek (not the same as modern Greek) and require Thucydides to be kept in the original format, you have already lost any "sanctity" that may have existed. You already have the translator inserted between you and the original work. There may be "eternal truths" but you will almost certainly not know if they are there or not.
Regarding the comment made by "three blind mice"
dated Jan. 26, 2004 at 6:22am:
You are quite correct in saying that my statement
is philosophical but I don't want to let you have
the whole show. :-) No person on earth can be free
of influence from any philosophical aspect.
You have few points that I want to comment on.
Regarding inventions, Nature can't provide all
products in every possible combination of laws,
elements, and forms. (I am aware that elements
are made of smaller parts such as protons, neutrons,
and electrons which are made of much smaller parts
but I am using the more general term "elements"
here.) Instead, it provides the elements, forms,
and laws. Then, it also provides man the means to
combine the laws, forms, and elments to make something
that Nature does not provide at the first place.
Although Nature can't make the elements commons
to all living things in the world, it makes sure
that the laws and forms are commons to all of them.
Over the ages, people through research discover these
laws and forms and produce "new" things based on the
knowledge of the laws and forms.
Inventors usually forget that they draw the
knowledge from the commons and through selfish
nature, want to have the control over the inventions.
Nature does not mind this but it can't stay that way
for a long time. Therefore, to counter this possible
abuse of control, it provides the human beings the
means to copy the inventions. There are many
instances throughout history that people copy
inventions from other groups.
Next point is whether control is same as selfishness.
Granted, you have a point that not every control
is same as selfishness. Let's look at your two
examples of Thucydides and Athenian government.
The control that you said that they wanted to have
is actually censorship. They did not want
anyone to use their works and express them
in any different way. Therefore, they wanted to
impose censorship on people.
I don't know what is your position on control
as a tool for censorship but this kind of control
is easy to abuse and does not sit well with me.
The proper way to maintain the integrity in works
is through old-fashioned trademark (not the
present concept of trademark which can be used
as a tool for censorship) and education.
While I offended you by saying that control is
selfishness, I think that you need to face
the realities that most of the copyright holders
want to control their works for their own
interests. In other words, they are selfish.
In this case, this kind of control for one's
own interests is same as selfishness.
Their claim that they want to have control
for purity of art is just a disguise over their
selfish motivations. If they truly want to
promote the purity of their art, they should have
used trademark or education.
The last point is that I am not anti-intellectual
property. It would be nice that all of us are
altruistic at all the times. But, this is not the
case. I do see a lot of pragmatic values in
intellectual property rights but too much of them
does more harm than benefits. This is where
we differ - you want more and more while I want
moderation.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Hi,
I just noticed this thread about Pamela Jones allegedly being an IBM operative, paid by them, etc.
I am Pamela Jones of Groklaw, and therefore I can speak with authority on this subject. I have absolutely no connection with IBM at all. I have never received one thin dime from them or any other party in the case. Groklaw is a labor of love. I have on several occasions turned down opportunities to make money from Groklaw, not offers from IBM, by the way, who have never offered me anything.
The Forbes article was an attempt, in my opinion, to suggest such a tie, but in reality there is none. Others have told me that the author of the article seems to have an anti-IBM bias.
Forbes asked me about any connection with IBM and I told the journalist that there was none. He researched for a couple of months and contacted a number of folks trying to find a connection (they told me), and you may be sure he would have printed anything he could have found. He was left with innuendo, because there is no tie. That is why he couldn't find one.
It seems very hard for some to accept that I would do all the work I do for love instead of money, but there you are. I do.
As Eben Moglen said in his talk at Harvard Law School this month, when you are effective, there is blowback. This defamatory whisper campaign against me is blowback, and I take it to mean that Groklaw is effective.
PJ
Tell you because the jewelry of plusing body is more inexpensive rohan online gold than the jewelry of plusing agility.
If one needs help, I always go to help. Even if one need hero gold, I will also try to gave he.
Building a family, we started as crazy as an upgrade and earn 2moons dil, but we all know how to upgrade the suffering, we practice the day and night.