Comment Re:The "choice is bad" argument (Score 4, Insightful) 405
Android *is* open. Open for the carriers.
The users, not so much.
The users, not so much.
Good thing police take all laws 100% seriously in every single instance.
Because the chance that the police might not take the law seriously is a perfectly good reason to completely break it!
sexconker, you are making it remarkably hard for me to defend you.
Stop (gratuitously) cursing, lose the derogatory names, and stop saying stuff like "everything you said is completely illogical and wrong." It doesn't help your argument, it just makes you seem like a douchebag.
You DO have some good points, but most people won't get them because they'll just write you off as a troll. And, if you'll look at some of your comments on this article, you'll notice you HAVE been modded down to troll.
Step back, cool off, and write without any of the insults. If your argument is strong it'll stand on its own.
Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.
The "copying code necessarily destroys code uniqueness" argument and the "slavery and killing are not 'real, tangible products' argument were actually completely separate arguments. The former cited an example of something that is literally *taken away* from you (stolen) if someone copies your code; the latter was trying to disqualify his maxwells demon's examples for why "I can make a living off this" isn't a good barometer for something that should be legal—a point he was correct in making, but let's not get off track here.
Having "exclusive use" of your code (let's say "uniqueness"; totally bogus dude said that in his response to me and I think that's a better way of putting it) is not a "real, tangible product." The code itself is a "real, tangible product"; the uniqueness is a byproduct of having created something original. And yes, when you sell or supply your code to anyone else, your code is no longer unique. To create a website, however, you must place at least some code online where it is accessible by anyone. You could argue that this equates to "supplying" others with your code, I suppose, but most people do it with the reasonable expectation that it will not be copied. In this case, Plurk hadn't "sold or supplied" Microsoft with the code, Microsoft just took it. And in the case of software products like Photoshop, what is being sold is the compiled binary, not the code itself.
What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.
Yes, that's exactly what it gives you, and as a result of that you are legally guaranteed code uniqueness, unless you choose to surrender that right.
Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this just semantics. Whether you "steal" an idea, "copy" an idea, or "plagiarize" an idea, it all equates to the same thing. Furthermore, just because a classical definition of "theft" requires that something is physically taken doesn't mean that more recent definitions can't be expanded to include the plagiarism of ideas. For all intents and purposes, the word "theft" conveys the intended meaning effectively, even if a more specific word might be (slightly) more appropriate.
I don't think either of us have any idea what terminology is used in copyright cases—you yourself stated that they "probably" don't say the word theft—so I'll just leave that part of the argument alone.
Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.
Actually, according to Dictionary.com *and* Merriam-Webster, it is. But again, this is engaging in semantics.
Ah, but 200 years ago, slavery was legal in the US and much of the rest of the world. It didn't violate the slaves' rights, because by the laws at the time, the slaves had no rights recognized by the legal system.
When I said "another human being's rights", I meant it more in the sense of moral, inalienable rights, not legal rights. We all believe people have the right to life, and to live a *free* life, which is why the application of sexconker's argument to slavery and killing was a good move, and clearly he needs to come up with a more specific (or just plain different) barometer for what professions should be legal if he wants to argue that point here.
Technically, one *could* try to redeem sexconker's exact argument as he stated it by saying that they believe slavery and killing should be legal. If one believes that, then maxwells demon hasn't come up with a suitable rebuttal for why something shouldn't be legal just because you can make a living from it. Of course, if someone believes that, we all know they're just a fucked-up person
I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.
No, I realize the advantage of pedantic argumentation (although that's the first time I've heard the term), and I agree that the original analogy comparing stealing someone's physical belongings to stealing code is flawed, but there was no reason to compare the analogy to something else when he pointed out its flaws in the next sentence. I was just nitpicking because maxwell demon came across as really obnoxious
The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?
This a fair assessment, since we can all agree (well, except maybe sexconker) that the analogy wasn't apt in the first place.
This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.
This issue *is* just semantics, as far as I'm concerned, which was what I was trying to point out, although that may not have come across clearly. A classical definition of "theft" may only cover something which was removed from its owner's possession, whereas more recent definitions may cover the copying of intellectual property and other such things. Dictionary.com lists both. Clearly there are more specific words or phrases for what occurred here, but for all intents and purposes I think "theft" or "stealing" conveys the meaning pretty effectively.
No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo. Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.
I did point out the uniqueness issue in my response to maxwell demon's other post, and it's not hard to see how the loss of that uniqueness can devalue your code, especially if you're up against a giant corporation with billions of dollars in the bank.
The major point of contest here is the distinction between code copying actually losing a company or individual money, and code copying *resulting* in a company or individual losing money. Technically, you're correct: merely having their code copied doesn't make the writers lose any money at all. If, however, Microsoft's clone were successful enough that Plurk couldn't recoup its initial investment into writing the code, then you could make a very strong case that the code copying resulted in Plurk losing money.
It is (to make my own analogy) as if you are taking a test on a bell curve with another student who copies your answers: if he does better than you, you're technically not losing any points, but you could argue that you would have those points if the other student took the test honestly.
This approaches the crux of the matter. What you say is true, and yet we still "feel" it's unacceptable behaviour. But why? sexconker was previously arguing that closed-source programs should be protected because people like him making a living from it. But obviously just the fact you can make money from something doesn't mean that it's something society should protect. After all, people make money from robbery, selling dangerous drugs, acts of violence, and all sorts of other things we'd prefer not to have people doing. This isn't to say that writing closed-source code is "the same as" beating people up for money; it's merely pointing out that "this is how I make a living" isn't a suitable litmus test for determining whether something should be legally protected.
You are correct (I noted that as well). The purpose of my plagiarism example was to show maxwells demon that although he was quick to make a hyperbolic comparison with sexconker's argument, the same could be done with his own—and with much less exaggeration. I realize that the fact that someone can make a living doing something shouldn't necessarily qualify it for legal protection, but we're treading into very subjective waters here. Some people might say that you shouldn't be able to make a living giving abortions, or selling cigarettes. Hopefully "slavery and killing" and "programming" are some of the more objective careers, but the point is that this issue is much less clear-cut than, say, whether the act of copying code causes monetary loss.
For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.
Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy? Well, shit, how happy do you think our hypothetical programmer would be if someone used his code without asking permission, paying him or giving him credit?
Great argument
You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft. As in, "copying code is still theft, even though nothing is technically *taken away* from someone". You are the one arguing semantics here, sir.
No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.
Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.
No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.
Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.
Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!
The analogy fails in several ways.
Your RESPONSE fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Since we're making an analogy about stealing code, not breaking into someone's house, it doesn't really matter what breaking into someone's house is like.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
Something like having exclusive use of that code?
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
Well, technically that's a matter of opinion. But since (I hope) we're all of the opinion that slavery and killing SHOULD be illegal, I'll disqualify slavery and killing from the category of "real, tangible products" due to the fact that they necessarily violate another human being's rights.
The HitlerHitler
Really? Godwin's Law already? It's the FIRST POST.
What I don't understand is why Fusion Garage owns any of the intellectual property whatsoever...
Probably because they worked with them to develop the final prototypes, although that's just speculation.
From the TFA it's not even clear that Arrington properly retained sole ownership of the "CrunchPad" trademark, it's all intermingled and joint.
Actually, I thought he made it pretty clear that TechCrunch retained sole ownership of the "CrunchPad" trademark when he said "we solely own the CrunchPad trademark."
You'd think the least he would have done is had non-compete language in the recision provisions of their joint venture
Except this isn't COMPETING. They're still trying to sell the product, just without TechCrunch's involvement.
Basically what Fusion Garage did is they hired Arrington as a consultant and marketer (as they say, an "evangelist") and now they're telling him to take a hike, and this ostensibly-smart "insider" finds himself without recourse.
Except they can't do that without his permission. They're at a stalemate where neither one of them can make the product.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
