Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:24:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
797 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Of course each individual will use a different method. Some folks are
> interested in a fairly small niche of music, and will be best served by
> sharing with their friends, or perhaps using one or two web sites they
> have come to trust.
I happen to enjoy a VERY wide variety of music genres. I doubt that I shall
easily find a set of reviewers whose views I respect or understand well
enough to rely upon them. Perhaps, others with more boxed-in tastes can be
served that way -- I don't know. How many film reviewers do you consult
regularly such that you also respect/understand their opinions sufficiently
to make real use of their views? While Gene Siskel was alive I might have
said "One."
Your definition of a gatekeeper is lot broader than mine, btw. I would not
have included search engines, lugnet, etc. I realize that these services do
serve a possible "filtering" function, but that's a far cry from robust
statements for or against a product as in a product review.
> I think it is reasonable for a software publisher to want more money from
> you if you install the software on more than one machine.
Actually, I can't see why. I can generally only make active use of one
machine at a time unless some very intense processing is going on one
machine and I am working on another, hands on.
I think the main distinctions should be made along the lines of license for
a private dwelling with 5 or fewer boxes, and a separate one for commercial
use of 6 or more boxes. In general, the private dwelling will not make
significant use of the software whereas commercial use can be expected to be
fairly constant. I could see a third category for servers, depending on the
software. Obviously prices should reflect the different kinds of use.
> What we really need is a more free market so reasonable schemes can
> develop. Clearly the current copyright law and distribution methods
> aren't the best for the future. But my feeling is also that the future
> will be very bleak if people take the attitude that corporations don't
> deserve their support (and I'm not saying you're saying this, but the
> general feel I get is that there is an segment of population which
> doesn't want to pay for software).
I think there is more anti-corporate sentiment than most people suspect. I
personally maintain a Jeffersonian view that more or less assumes that
deathless fictitious persons with extravagant wealth are easily able to
hamper, both by intent and by the incidence of their mere existence, the
rights of natural persons with more modest means. But, that's really another
subject altogether.
As to the software issue, people don't want to pay the same price for
personal use of a software as does a corporation for their use because the
usage is clearly of different kinds and intensities. Time rented software
might be one solution someday when "internet 2" (?) has provided enough high
speed access to make such a scheme plausible -- but I can see security
concerns being a deal-breaker there too. Short term, there should be a
different price for Adobe PhotoShop use by a private person than by a
commercial venture -- and to my knowledge there is not. I have software
that I paid big $$$ for that I use very infrequently -- and I suspect that I
am not alone.
Also, updates should not cost quite so much, especially when many of them
(and I am thinking of MS OSs very specifically here) are no better than bug
fixers/makers. The bugginess and actual utility of software is very
difficult to guage from outside of the packaged box, yet once unwrapped and
used the licensed goods are unreturnable for refund, right? I also have
software that I paid big $$$ for that I use very infrequently, and have in
some case even uninstalled, because of bugginess -- and I suspect that I am
not alone.
When one gets burned enough times, one stops buying. I have a friend that
almost prides herself on never having purchased any of the software she uses
at home. Again, I think she is not alone in having found ways around having
to buy a lot of software. Add that price to most computers and I think you
will see not only a drop in hardware sales, but in usage altogether. I have
anecdotal support for this view of mine, and the persons I know that have
"copied" software are themselves generally in the technology industry.
Amongst more casual users I suspect the problem may be even more aggravated.
> While I can see the point that overbearing copy protections etc. will
> induce a certain population to break the protections and steal the
> goods, I can not condone the actual theft of goods.
Well, neither do I -- but if the protection scheme prevents me from
legitimate and fair use, then I just stop caring. The corporations have dug
their own grave and I am happy to shove them into it and cover them up.
I happen to be a font hound, and there are a lot of weird things that go on
in that industry to be sure. I am trying to remember the license details
for a font made by P22 for use of their Escher font. Anyway, upon release I
bought the font package at Cody's Bookstore in Berkeley and took it home. I
opened the package up, making it now unreturnable, and read the license
agreement. Ah, here it is on the web (it's strange that I found it on the
web so easily, but then this agreement is FAR from the norm -- the more
atypical part is the part about "personal" use, but not all fonts disallow
logo use either):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*The lettering in this font set may be used for any personal project. The
graphic images in this font set, as well as the lettering of this font set,
are intended for personal use only. Any use of this lettering and/or the
graphic images in logo or letterhead designs is strictly prohibited and
these are protected under international copyright law. Inquiries for
commercial use of both the lettering and/or the extras should be directed to
Cordon Art B.V., Nieustraat 6, P.O. Box 101, 3740 AC Baarn, Holland.
http://www.philsfonts.com/phils/sectionsjul99/typep225.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, this "useless-font" agreement is something that the Escher Estate
had apparently insisted upon. If you follow the URL, you will notice an
Escher symbol that is often used for indicating "Recycling" -- something the
Escher Estate was very steamed about and that supposedly influenced their
decision about the use of the Escher font. Yet, one buys things in order to
use them. After complaining to the foundry, who said they would refund my
money on it, I actually got Cody's to accept a return on this package
because of the highly unusual nature of the licensing agreement. It ended
happily enough, but I cannot see anyone paying for the privilege of
"viewing" this font software, or for personal use. I will bet that one can
easily find a "free" copy of it somewhere too. And whom does this free use
hurt? Certainly not the dead artist upon whose hand-lettering these fonts
are based.
For more on my peculiar ideas about laws, copyrights, trademarks, patents
AND FONTS, see: http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/blueofnoon.html
(some typos may detract, but I didn't publish or edit the thing -- it was
taken from a newsgroup called alt.binaries.fonts)
> I don't want to rely purely on the good will of the people using my ideas.
See, in my view this is the only thing that stops people from murdering you
and otherwise abusing your rights. They simply choose not to do so. No law
ever stopped a carefully premeditated act from occurring, or going
unpunished for that matter.
> Clearly using someone else's hard goods without compensating them is
> theft. Clearly making someone spend time to do something for you without
> compensating them is theft.
Your qualifiers make it hard to respond to this in a more general way, but
I'll say this...
Fair Use allows for usage beyond these two simple statements. So in that
sense, I know that these defining ideas are overly narrow.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) Well, Lugnet is a gatekeeper. I expect the big music publishers to start to fade away. I see a future with middlemen with a smaller audience and focus. On the other hand, I also expect some large middlemen to emerge. I bet bars would much (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
