Displeased with Linux Action Shows' understanding of Free Software with Richard

[Xenland]

I just have to shout out (scince I just Nuked my facebook today, yes i know they save your crap no matter what just SHHH!!)
I watched an episode of Linux Action Show (I never seen it till recently) and was just displeased on their arguments they were presenting against Richard Stallman.
Mostly because of the extreme view of "Free Software is a non-profitable blackhole for survivalists", From my understanding Richard was trying to simply say "If you paint a beautiful painting I should be able to take an HD photo of it and put it on my desktop wallpaper at home with out paying the artist for royalties or perhaps I want it on my wall so I take an HD photo with my camera and paint the painting in enlarged format on my wall my self. The LAS team kept coming back with a counter-argument saying something along the lines of "But a programmer like me can't eat with free software". First off, If you live in the united states, the Homeless can eat three course meals a day with out a problem(I could be wrong about a few exception of over homeless cities that wont be named here), I've been homeless before and I didn't go hungry not once that a-side I believe Richards' response was saying basically along those lines that only a small fraction of people will be effected by releasing only free software becuase the ripple effect and that the personal freedom of others will help liberate your self. --End Rant.

[FirstAscent]

"If you paint a beautiful painting I should be able to take an HD photo of it and put it on my desktop wallpaper at home with out paying the artist for royalties or perhaps I want it on my wall so I take an HD photo with my camera and paint the painting in enlarged format on my wall my self."

So many fallacies there. Wow.

1. Where is the painting? Is there a rule/law that prohibits the taking of a picture of the painting?

2. Taking a photo of it does not duplicate it, as the lighting will create specular highlights in the paint globs, etc., therefore, the analogy cannot be extended to the act of digitally copying a digital file.

3. Taking a photo for private enjoyment is not the same as then printing copies and selling them or giving them away.

The point is, if an analogy is used to make a case, be prepared to defend the analogy such that it is shown to stand up to a rigorous comparison of what it is trying to analogize to.

[Xenland]

"If you paint a beautiful painting I should be able to take an HD photo of it and put it on my desktop wallpaper at home with out paying the artist for royalties or perhaps I want it on my wall so I take an HD photo with my camera and paint the painting in enlarged format on my wall my self."

So many fallacies there. Wow.

1. Where is the painting? Is there a rule/law that prohibits the taking of a picture of the painting?

2. Taking a photo of it does not duplicate it, as the lighting will create specular highlights in the paint globs, etc., therefore, the analogy cannot be extended to the act of digitally copying a digital file.

3. Taking a photo for private enjoyment is not the same as then printing copies and selling them or giving them away.

The point is, if an analogy is used to make a case, be prepared to defend the analogy such that it is shown to stand up to a rigorous comparison of what it is trying to analogize to.

Hmm good questions.. I thought i was clear but I was not!

1. Its a theoretical painting(you already know that) and its theoretically in my neighbours living room and I just took a HDR HD photo of it so I can manually myself paint a replica of it in my living room... who knows maybe I'll just happen to have a huge party and get slammed with a bunch of "Royalties" bills for public display, if the person was okay with sharing I'd be allowed to duplicate it and share accordingly (of course not sell it unless their was some kind of services rendered like paper/ink costs, time costs, etc). I'm thinking like Copyright Vs GPL/Copyleft here but then again Richard opened up my mind on that pod cast on how to think of freedom so I'm still in an enlightenment mood --still learning.

2. Good point, Lets switch it to an example of a Digital Painting and I just copied the non-source file of his work on to my SD Drive. None of these actions were services rendered by the artist, it was no cost to the artist, how ever I think if i wanted to own the original Digital Painting, I'd imagine that a one time fee to own it would be in order.

3. True, but I'm pretty sure the argument going on the Linux Action Show was more about "How to make money by just giving/sharing away copies of data/art/code instead of charging per copy" in this case with the painting the money is with the original as that is where the services of time and skill was rendered as you said so your self taking a photo is not the same as the original (or exact copy of the digital file). There is no services rendered after the first copy of anything is sold, there is no ownership after more then two entities have a copy of restricted license its by a practical-definition of belonging to the public.

I may have got dizzy during the thinking of all this, copyright's lefts, free speech beeer..... head... spinn in.....

[Severian]

I love RMS when he's coding. I wish he'd do more of that and less talking.

Richard Stallman programmed Chuck Norris

http://stallmanfacts.com/all

[Xenland]

I love RMS when he's coding. I wish he'd do more of that and less talking.

Richard Stallman programmed Chuck Norris

http://stallmanfacts.com/all

Love it!! LOL Beard made of parentheses....

[FirstAscent]

"If you paint a beautiful painting I should be able to take an HD photo of it and put it on my desktop wallpaper at home with out paying the artist for royalties or perhaps I want it on my wall so I take an HD photo with my camera and paint the painting in enlarged format on my wall my self."

So many fallacies there. Wow.

1. Where is the painting? Is there a rule/law that prohibits the taking of a picture of the painting?

2. Taking a photo of it does not duplicate it, as the lighting will create specular highlights in the paint globs, etc., therefore, the analogy cannot be extended to the act of digitally copying a digital file.

3. Taking a photo for private enjoyment is not the same as then printing copies and selling them or giving them away.

The point is, if an analogy is used to make a case, be prepared to defend the analogy such that it is shown to stand up to a rigorous comparison of what it is trying to analogize to.

Hmm good questions.. I thought i was clear but I was not!

1. Its a theoretical painting(you already know that) and its theoretically in my neighbours living room and I just took a HDR HD photo of it so I can manually myself paint a replica of it in my living room... who knows maybe I'll just happen to have a huge party and get slammed with a bunch of "Royalties" bills for public display, if the person was okay with sharing I'd be allowed to duplicate it and share accordingly (of course not sell it unless their was some kind of services rendered like paper/ink costs, time costs, etc). I'm thinking like Copyright Vs GPL/Copyleft here but then again Richard opened up my mind on that pod cast on how to think of freedom so I'm still in an enlightenment mood --still learning.

2. Good point, Lets switch it to an example of a Digital Painting and I just copied the non-source file of his work on to my SD Drive. None of these actions were services rendered by the artist, it was no cost to the artist, how ever I think if i wanted to own the original Digital Painting, I'd imagine that a one time fee to own it would be in order.

3. True, but I'm pretty sure the argument going on the Linux Action Show was more about "How to make money by just giving/sharing away copies of data/art/code instead of charging per copy" in this case with the painting the money is with the original as that is where the services of time and skill was rendered as you said so your self taking a photo is not the same as the original (or exact copy of the digital file). There is no services rendered after the first copy of anything is sold, there is no ownership after more then two entities have a copy of restricted license its by a practical-definition of belonging to the public.

I may have got dizzy during the thinking of all this, copyright's lefts, free speech beeer..... head... spinn in.....

I'm still having problems with this.

Regarding 1 and 2: did your friend let you take a picture or copy it from his drive?

Regarding 2: when copying a file byte for byte, the notion of original has no meaning. You have his original now as much as he does.

Regarding 3: How is the money just with the original, now that you have a digital copy?

You cannot analogize copies of original works (physical manuscritpts, paintings, antique cars, etc.) to byte for byte digital copies.

[FirstAscent]

You cannot analogize copies of original works (physical manuscritpts, paintings, antique cars, etc.) to byte for byte digital copies.

Sure you can! People that don’t produce anything always have a good rationalization against taking something from the people that do produce. There are mechanisms that attempt to keep leaching to a minimum but they are not foolproof.

The shocker to me is that universities that are always screaming for a handout and upping tuition don’t always make faculty sign intellectual property rights and sell the production of their employees. Everyone on a university payroll should be treated the same as if they worked for Microsoft. If universities did, a good education would be free to all applicants that can qualify academically. Instead they pay for costly facilities and experiments then allow the employees to give away the products produced on “company” time or keep the rewards. I wonder how many professors have made money selling books to students and returned all profit from those sales to the system. I would expect none have.

That's all well and good and I think you see my point, which is: pirating movies and pirating software and claiming ignorance only hurts everyone in the end. How can movies or software get produced if the chances of compensation is reduced or eliminated? I already hear the arguments coming because I've seen them before. They don't hold up. One of the arguments is that filmmakers make their money back by ticket sales at theaters. But with large televisions, home viewing is challenging ticket sales, and will continue to do so. If theaters go the way of the buggy whip, and piracy goes on the upswing, then investors for film ventures will dry up, and the number of new movies will languish.

[Xenland]

Re-reading back on this(been a while) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

It seems I am confused, perhaps the paint scenario would go along the lines of me requesting to purchase a copy of the source files of the digital photo that was painted(with tablet or touchscreen) so I am free to change layers/filters/effects as I please.

I'll assume in this next example that perhaps in a "Free World" (By definition of GNU and Open-source philosophy) that a video game such as borderlands 2 would be free as in you'd still have to pay to have the rights to play, own,change,(re-distribute?) the down being that yea the source code is out there and any one that knows how to look up youtube tutorials to learn how to compile Borderlands 2. That brings me to this point of..

What majority of people are willing to compile Borderlands 2 from a shared copy from a friend/online database with out any one-on-one support from the Boderland developers or support team. A geek that knows compiling could figure it out some compiling errors with out support and sure the borderland developers would be out a few hundred $$$ but thats a minority of people to not cause significant damage in net-profits may not even be noticeable.