DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

I suggest
that instead of considering the difference as far as a copyright is
concerned, you think of it in terms of a patent where, when a patent
expires, the invention passes into the public domain. When that
happens all the prior restrictions encumbering its use fall away and
it becomes freely available to the public to use in any way it sees
fit.

Of course in reality, the idea is available to the public as soon as
they see it. The only problem is, the patent law forbids them from
using it for innovation, business, health, scientific research, etc.

No, the whole purpose of patent law is to make ideas available for
research and innovation as soon as possible. Lets consider the
alternative: Somebody has a bright idea for some new process. If there
were no patent laws, he would keep it secret, and others could not use
it or improve on it. For a patent, you have to disclose the idea, so
that any competent person in the field can use it. In return, you
receive royalties from anybody making _commercial_ use of your idea.

In an ideal world at least this protects the interest of both the public
(technical and scientific progress is available as soon as possible) and
the inventer to obtain the just rewards for it.

That patents, especially in the software industry, have become an
obstacle rather than a catalyst for progress has to do with the wrong
application of patent law, especially in the US:
- Patents are awarded on things that were, for good reason, excluded
from patentability (algorithm, discoveries).
- Patents are unjustifiably broad, covering things later invented by
others.
- Patens are awarded despite prior art.

Of necessity, any invention or copyrighted work intended for public
dissemination _has_ to be presented for sale to the public, but that
doesn't mean that the author's or inventor's exclusive rights to the
works are abridged in any way.

You may want "exclusive rights" to some information, but the reality is
that once somebody else knows that information you no longer are the
exclusive holder of the information.

If somebody copies my software, I dont lose my copy.

---
But you _do_ lose the income which was rightfully yours had they
bought the software instead of copying/stealing it.
---

Rightfully yours my ass. Unless you are referring to your right to pay
an armed group to ensure a monopoly enterprise.

No. Wealth can be generated only by work, that is a fundamental rule of
macroeconomics. If I write software, or if I make an invention, or if I
create a work of art, my work goes into the creation of something new.
Is it not fair then that I should be the one who profits from the wealth
created?

If, say, a blacksmith turns a piece of iron into a horse-shoe, he uses
work to transform an object into something more usable, that is more
valuable. When he turns over that horseshoe to a rider, he gets paid for
his trouble. Even if the rider gave the smith the piece of iron to work
with, the smith still has the right to payment for his work.

In the same way a software author has the right to earn a living from
the work of his hands (or brain, as the case may be). That it is
technically _easy_ to take that income away from him doesn't make it
morally _right_. And so we have laws to protect us from those who want
to take away from us the fruits of our labour, laws against physical
theft as well as against the theft of intellectual property.

Of course it is the right of anyone to donate his work, by working for a
charity for example or by making software available under a free licence
(e.g. GPL). But that they do under their own free will, they should not
be forced to do it (that's called communism) nor should others be
allowed to just take it away (that's called theft).

It is very, very, *very* different to stealing a physical object from
someone.

As you can see from the above, it is basically a similar thing,
differences in detail (and in the applicable law) none-withstanding.