Re: Piracy in the Go industry.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:31 am
I think you're wrong about limited licenses, Bantari. If I buy a gun, I cannot legally shoot you with it unless you've been extremely naughty. That does not imply that we only buy a limited license to the gun. The same goes for houses. Ownership is compatible with legal restrictions on what you do with a thing. What we do buy limited licenses to are software and a few other things, because that is explicitly limited by the seller.
But let me circle back to a point: copyright doesn't represent the authors' intentions. It is a legal default. But it's also not apt to say "it's just a default, you can always make your own EULA/contract". Of course, you literally can do that, as evidence by the GPL, BSD license and all that cool stuff, but I thought of another way existing law privileges the default arrangement.
Copyright law has an enormous caselaw in existence that creates precedents, so that you know how it will be enforced. It's not always consistent or obvious, which is why we have so many high-dollar lawyers running around in their suits. But still, when you release a work under standard contract, you aren't reinventing the wheel.
On the other hand, if you use a non-standard contract, whether creative commons or a EULA, you are reinventing the wheel. If you're the first, there is no case law that directly governs how your contract will be enforced. If you don't have the world's shiniest lawyer in the absolute best suit, your contract probably won't be written in such a way that it can withstand all the challenges you want it to, and give you the results you expect. You're taking a kind of legal risk by opting out of the default, and you might be incurring much greater legal costs.
So I conclude that copyright is not so much about authors' intentions as it is about a legal regime that we impose on everyone, authors included. And in the case of books, I don't think it's a terrible regime. But I just don't see what it has to do with protecting the wishes of authors, some of whom would probably be horrified by retroactive post-mortem extensions of their copyright and all that.
P.S. There was a recent ruling that you can't resell software that you have bought. The issue is not that you can't make copies. It's that you can't resell shrink-wrapped uninstalled boxed up software if the license forbids it. If you don't read that and think "get the axe" you're either more peaceful than me or I worry about your sense of justice.
But let me circle back to a point: copyright doesn't represent the authors' intentions. It is a legal default. But it's also not apt to say "it's just a default, you can always make your own EULA/contract". Of course, you literally can do that, as evidence by the GPL, BSD license and all that cool stuff, but I thought of another way existing law privileges the default arrangement.
Copyright law has an enormous caselaw in existence that creates precedents, so that you know how it will be enforced. It's not always consistent or obvious, which is why we have so many high-dollar lawyers running around in their suits. But still, when you release a work under standard contract, you aren't reinventing the wheel.
On the other hand, if you use a non-standard contract, whether creative commons or a EULA, you are reinventing the wheel. If you're the first, there is no case law that directly governs how your contract will be enforced. If you don't have the world's shiniest lawyer in the absolute best suit, your contract probably won't be written in such a way that it can withstand all the challenges you want it to, and give you the results you expect. You're taking a kind of legal risk by opting out of the default, and you might be incurring much greater legal costs.
So I conclude that copyright is not so much about authors' intentions as it is about a legal regime that we impose on everyone, authors included. And in the case of books, I don't think it's a terrible regime. But I just don't see what it has to do with protecting the wishes of authors, some of whom would probably be horrified by retroactive post-mortem extensions of their copyright and all that.
P.S. There was a recent ruling that you can't resell software that you have bought. The issue is not that you can't make copies. It's that you can't resell shrink-wrapped uninstalled boxed up software if the license forbids it. If you don't read that and think "get the axe" you're either more peaceful than me or I worry about your sense of justice.