From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262409AbTD3UZq (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:25:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262402AbTD3UZp (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:25:45 -0400 Received: from mail.casabyte.com ([209.63.254.226]:61445 "EHLO mail.1casabyte.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262409AbTD3UZm (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:25:42 -0400 From: "Robert White" To: "Rik van Riel" Cc: "Timothy Miller" , "James Bottomley" , "Larry McVoy" , Subject: RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:37:54 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dude, loosen your mind a little... Like so many you are laboring under the misapprehension that all rights have the same precedence. That's obviously dumb and you know it. I have the right to keep and bare arms, you have the right not to be gunned down while buying milk at the neighborhood circle-K. You have the right to smoke, I have the right not to have to breathe that smoke. See... "rights" are not absolute. You are splitting a pointless hair. The statement "an author has a right to profit from his creation" doesn't (and didn't in my mind) have anything to do with any follow-on statements about extorting money nor was it predicated on the "right" in any kind of absolute sense. It is clear and obvious that the creation of a work that has no value doesn't magically give an author the "right" to demand to be paid out of a vacuum. It is, however, also obvious that if someone creates something with a substantial value, that creator has a right not to be screwed out of that value unilaterally. If I write a book, I have the right to expect that people who use that book meet certain reasonable terms for the privilege. Simply put, if you make something and you can make it pay you money, you have the right to that money. If you create something valuable and then can't manage to make it pay then you have the right to lose your shirt. There is a moral right to reap benefit from your action. Playing word games about the betterment of humanity is all fine and good, but for the most part people act solely in self-interest. The key, of course, is to get as many as possible to act in *enlightened* self-interest. If you go around telling people "you don't have a right to make a profit just because you wrote that" the smart people will know what you mean and the dumb ones wont. That is pretty much the textbook example of a needlessly inflammatory statement. Compound that with the fundamental concept that profit does not necessarily mean money and you get to such sublime concepts as "If I make it, nobody should be allowed to say I can't use it, I made it damn it..." This argument is about the law, but it is not *JUST* about the law as it exists, it is about trying to match the law to what is just. In point of fact copyright law is completely about the rights of authors, in particular it is about convincing authors to forgo their right to hoard everything they create. It's about convincing authors that there is good cause and reason to release their proprietary death-grip on their works. The *goal* is to benefit all man kind, sure, but the law is about salving the certain wounds the author will suffer once his ideas leave his control and get tattered and recycled by the soiled masses. Say it that way and you will make more sense to the authors. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: Rik van Riel [mailto:riel@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:35 PM To: Robert White Cc: Timothy Miller; James Bottomley; Larry McVoy; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Robert White wrote: > 1) the author has a right to profit from his creation Not at all. Copyright law is to promote the progress of sciences and arts; in short, it is about the rights of mankind, not about the rights of authors. The temporary monopoly which authors get over their work is there to encourage authors to create more works, which in turn benefit all of mankind. Just a side effect to promote the good of the many.