You're confusing your own choice to give away your own work with the choice of many to take work of others not freely given. It's unreasonable to assume that everybody would make the same choice as you, which is why a creator's right to make that choice is important.
Would you, for example, feel the same way about publishing a book if you had no right to keep other people from putting their name on it and claiming it as their own? Or would you rather not have that choice at all?
> Would you, for example, feel the same way about publishing a book if you had no right to keep other people from putting their name on it and claiming it as their own? Or would you rather not have that choice at all?
I'd like to point out here that in most countries, copyrights and moral rights are legally entirely separate.
Moral rights (the right to be recognized as the creator of a work, and in certain circumstances the right to dis-avow your involvement with a work, if it has been modified in certain ways for example) are generally non-transferable, for example.
Trying to conflate the two to argue against someone's belief that reproduction / copying a work is ok is thus rather meaningless - we can easily enough have one without the other.
> Would you, for example, feel the same way about publishing a book if you had no right to keep other people from putting their name on it and claiming it as their own?
Except everyone is against this. Everyone is against plagiarism.
That's where the law falls down: We have laws against 'copyright infringement', a wonky idea that essentially nobody understands or cares about, but not against plagiarism, which is what most people actually are against and will work to combat.
Some people actually think copyright infringement and plagiarism are the same thing, to the extent they believe that proper attribution keeps them on the right side of the law. It does, of course: The right side of the moral law, which is all most people ever really follow.
Then you have the few zealots, who try to equate copyright infringement with theft. They might just as well try to claim that it's a violation just like rape is a violation so The Pirate Bay is guilty of rape. They'd still fail, but at least their failure would be more amusing to the rest of us.
You're being dense. Why do I have to make a perfect copy? Without copyright protections, I could get a copy of your book, remove your name from the title and use my name instead, and then sell it to others. Who would of course be free to do the same.
Where's your marketing strategy if people just think you're one of the 250 people who claim to have written the book?
"It's almost as if copying something isn't actually the same as taking a physical object from someone." It isn't. The legal system and laws concerning copyright are very different than those concerning taking a physical object, and have been for centuries. Anyone saying they are the same either 1) don't know the law, or 2) deliberately want criminal property law to include civil copyright law. Probably so they can have the police do their dirty work.
Most countries separate moral rights (to be recognized as the creator of the work) from duplication rights in various ways. Moral rights are usually not transferable for example.
There's no reason why we can not enforce the two differently.
Especially seeing as there seem to be much less interest in violating authors moral rights - most pirated works retain the original credits. I would hazard a guess that most people would in fact be far more opposed to violations of a creators moral rights than of duplication rights.
Yes, I was using a US viewpoint, given that I'm a US citizen, HN is hosted in the US, and most of the participants are also under US copyright jurisdiction. The US doesn't have moral rights like what other countries have. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. is the Supreme Court example showing that works which have entered the public domain can be edited, and in doing so, remove information about the original authors.
Moral rights, as I understand them, only apply when something "would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation." However, modification depends on copyright. These are two separate things, and I think you agree with that.
Scalia, writing for the Court in the 8-0 decision, points out that Dastar "could face Lanham Act liability for crediting the creator if that should be regarded as implying the creator’s “sponsorship or approval” of the copy." Because Dastar did not include mention of Fox as the original author, there is actually less chance of the new work being 'prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation' and less infringement on moral right.
Therefore, I don't understand how your mentioning of moral rights affects my "one of 250" scenario. Since different countries seem to have different view on what exactly moral rights means, could you explain what the specific principle is and how long that moral right would last?
When you do so, could you also comment on how moral right would change the Dastar case, and how it might affect the following circumstance, also quoted from Scalia's Supreme Court judgement?
"A video of the MGM film Carmen Jones, after its copyright has expired, would presumably require attribution not just to MGM, but to Oscar Hammerstein II (who wrote the musical on which the film was based), to Georges Bizet (who wrote the opera on which the musical was based), and to Prosper Mérimée (who wrote the novel on which the opera was based). In many cases, figuring out who is in the line of “origin” would be no simple task."
Current US copyright law is irrelevant, as I was responding to a discussion where you were giving consequences to removing copyright protection, so I don't know why you bring up current US law at all.
I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to protect moral rights without restricting duplication, something which most countries already do.
Somehow it works, and the world hasn't ended, and there is no massive stream of works where people is butchering the credits, because people actually have respect for that.
I bring up US copyright law because while I understand US law at least somewhat, I don't understand what 'moral law' means. I've researched it, and it doesn't seem to be the same as what people here - including you - believe.
According to US law, if your work enters the public domain, then I can do almost whatever I want with it. I can chop it up into parts, rearrange the order, insert my own scenes, provide MST3K-like overlaps, and so on. What I can't do is imply that you have authorized or condoned the work. Hence the comment in Dastar that had Dastar left the attribution in the film then they might have been sued under the Lanham Act.
Please tell me if what Dastar did to the Fox film was butchering the credits or butchering the work, and if what they did was against the moral rights that you think ought to be used instead.
> Without copyright protections, I could get a copy of your book, remove your name from the title and use my name instead, and then sell it to others.
So that's what the law should prohibit, now isn't it? The law in this matter should be updated to reflect what most people are against. If it isn't, it isn't ever going to be enforceable, just like it isn't enforceable now.
(No, I don't think that every law should be brought into line with majority morality. Use your damn head.)
Right. You say "We have laws against 'copyright infringement', a wonky idea that essentially nobody understands or cares about, but not against plagiarism, which is what most people actually are against and will work to combat."
Plagiarism does not have a legal definition. It is based on moral/ethical principles which are specific to a field of endeavor. For example, academia has very strict rules against plagiarism while in artistic fields ... well, to quote Picasso, "Good artists copy, great artists steal." People are against plagiarism in the same way that they are against bad art, excessive noise, and foul manners - because by definition plagiarism is something people are against.
"So that's what the law should prohibit, now isn't it?" My point isn't tossed away so lightly. Current copyright law says that my scenario is illegal. Let's suppose then that we change the law. Can you tell me in a non-wonky way what that new law might be?
Under this moral law, can I take the text of Harry Potter, replace "Harry" with "Henry", and redistribute the modified text? (Crediting Rowling, of course). Why or why not? Can I translate Harry Potter into another language? What about fan-subs? Make my own MST3K-like version of the movie? Replace Potter's head with my own? Project the movie onto my garage for my neighbors to watch? And charge them money for it? There are people who would say "yes" to all of those. And people who would say "no." What is your guiding principle?
How would it affect the decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.? Do you consider Dastar guilty of some sort of moral right which is punishable under the law? If so, then what is your view on Scalia, writing for the 8-0 Court: "A video of the MGM film Carmen Jones, after its copyright has expired, would presumably require attribution not just to MGM, but to Oscar Hammerstein II (who wrote the musical on which the film was based), to Georges Bizet (who wrote the opera on which the musical was based), and to Prosper Mérimée (who wrote the novel on which the opera was based). In many cases, figuring out who is in the line of “origin” would be no simple task." When does one give up figuring out the line of origin?
I think anything you come up with will be as wonky as copyright law.
Do you realize that the GNU GPL is based on strong copyright law, and that removing it means the free software movement, who can enforces freedom through the GPL, would be almost powerless under your proposal? Does that affect your thoughts?
All laws have boundaries, sometimes non very clear ones. But they are still usually understood. Copyright is violated everyday, by almost everyone.
Do you realize that the GNU GPL is based on strong copyright law, and that removing it means the free software movement, who can enforces freedom through the GPL, would be almost powerless under your proposal? Does that affect your thoughts?
I'm not derleth, but personally, I think it's a decent trade. Particularly since more and more free software is non-copyleft anyway.
Yes, laws can change. Though copyright is a hard one since that's a Constitutional power.
Can you answer my specific questions? Do you believe that all of those actions (regarding Harry Potter derivatives) should be allowed under the law? If not, why?
Is it okay for me to I take the top 10 best selling new novels for this week, put them into an anthology, and publish them on Amazon for US$0.99, without paying anyone, so long as I acknowledge that I'm not the author? What if I publish them on Amazon for $0.00? What if I put them on some torrent site somewhere? Do you believe that all of these are acceptable behaviors?
We can abolish copyright. Would you replace it with anything?
> copyright is a hard one since that's a Constitutional power
From my reading of the Constitution, the only thing it says about copyrights is that they're one of the matters over which Congress has jurisdiction (as opposed to the states).
There's nothing in the Constitution which says that Congress can't change the requirements a work must meet for copyright to be granted, lengthen or shorten the amount of time a copyright lasts, or even abolish copyrights altogether -- in fact, in the past Congress has done all of these things, except weaken copyrights by shortening or abolition. No Constitutional amendments required.
You are right. I don't know how expansive the Supreme Court might interpret things. Can the power to extend copyright and patent protection also extend to specific moral rights? How far can that clause go? I guess the US passed the Visual Artists Rights Act, so it seems possible.
In Feist v. Rural, the supreme court said that copyright requires a creative action. It can be minimal, but it can't be a "sweat of the brow". Previous district court were divided over that. Compare to the UK, where the amount of work which goes into collecting or verifying a database is enough to establish a copyright.
I interpret this to say that there are certain copyright-like and patent-like actions which Congress cannot do, because it isn't a power granted to it. Yet on the other hand, trademarks are not based in the Constitution but are part of federal law. Which makes me wonder why copyright and patents are in the Constitution if they could have been done by other means.... except that perhaps it's the "for a limited time" clause which is important, as otherwise Congress could grant perpetual copyrights?
In any case, it's not "as opposed to the states", as states can also also grant rights. One such is the California Art Preservation Act. Federal law may preempt part of that state law. I think you should use "in addition to the states."
The GPL only uses copyright to prevent copyright from being used in far more harmful ways against future recipients of the work. If reverse engineering and redistribution were assuredly legal, we wouldn't really need it.
The GPL exists because even under the policy you describe, there's no way for someone who gets a binary to also have the ability to get the source code.
As an example, suppose I'm Tivo. I make this cool DVR using the Linux kernel. It contains modifications to the kernel, a new filesystem, etc. Suppose also that you purchase the DVR, which comes only with a pre-built binary. Under the GPL, you also have a right to get the source code used to make the binary, and in a usable form. Which is why you can go to the Tivo site and download the source for your hardware.
Reverse engineering might get you the effective equivalent, after a lot of work. Redistribution right doesn't give you the right to source code.
The GPLv3 also uses copyright to require licensing of patent rights.
Do you not need these rights? Do you think others might find those rights useful?
I hadn't considered the relationship between GPL and patents. I'll have to read more. Off the top of my head, I don't understand how anyone who went to the time and expense of getting a patent could ever jeopardize it with a GPLv3 release, since there's no bright line between a version of your program and a completely separate program that merely links enough code in to get a free patent license.
GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 are the two most widely used licenses which specifically mention patents. The goal of GPLv3 is (quoting from the license) to "[assure] that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free."
The "bright line" isn't always so bright. Consider if a hardware company pays MPEG LA for an MPEG license in order to sell a piece of video hardware based on Linux. The hardware company didn't get the patent, so while they must release the OS source under the GPL, they don't have the right to sublicense.
> to engage with people who want to try out the technology at this early stage
I suspect that group of people (those who want to try the early stage) intersects enormously with the group of people put off by hand-wavey dismissals of concerns about the infrastructure they use.
What you've built is cool, but you're selling to sceptical and curious early adopters. Keep that in mind.
I'm consistently amazed at how agencies full of information security experts, who understand that security by obscurity is the bottom of the barrel of fake security, nonetheless believe that keeping information secret from citizens is the best way to keep the country safe.
If your objective is to keep information secret, then keeping information secret isn't "security through obscurity". And while governments certainly do stuff they shouldn't be doing, and take advantage of the significant security apparatus at their disposal to do so, I don't buy the idea that governments don't, like most other organizations, need a shield of privacy to conduct it's business, including the significant legitimate bits of it, effectively.
For the first half I was thinking this was an inspiring story about an entrepreneur who realized he was taking things too seriously and was working himself to death, finding success in peaceful and carefree execution of an exciting idea.
Then came the part about how he got funded, and I came to realize this was more a story about an entrepreneur who won the startup lottery, is happy about it, and realizes that having money and relaxing with a well-funded team is better than working your ass off alone and not being able to afford utilities. Which is of course a foregone conclusion.
Thus for me the final act ruined what would have otherwise been an insightful tale of perspective.
My level of happiness went up WAY before the funding event happened and is much more a result of my lifestyle changes and improvements in balance, clarity & focus then the other way around :)
The examples I gave at the end of "success" included working with amazing people, getting married and having a little baby boy.
Getting funding for my startup is at the bottom of my personal list and is in no way an indication of my personal financial situation (still having debt & working on a very low salary to be able to invest everything in my company and team). Not to mention anything about a "relaxing" new lifestyle :)
Being an entrepreneur will always be a stressful gig. I've just chosen to maintain a balance so I can do this for a very long time without killing myself and making everyone around me miserable :)
I have to agree. You have to enjoy the day to day. The big picture can be an exciting amazing thing, but you have to enjoy the day to day.
As for me, I'm finding that if I really care about being as innovative as I need to be to get my startup off the ground, I must have a hard cap of 40 hours of work a week. If you're truly doing something innovative and technically challenging, breaks and experiential variety are key. Plus it's also fun mix up the staring at math and algorithms with taking the time to build relationships with your prospective customers.
(to the readers:if you're a senior grade person/guy/gal who's strong across math, cs, and engineering things nicely, and youre based in the NYC area, please shoot me an email, I'd love to chat with you over coffee sometime)
Getting (some degree of) funding != "Winning the startup lottery". Not by a long shot.
And for what it's worth, I don't know the Elastic Sales team personally but nothing I've heard indicates that Steli or any of the rest of them really "have money" in a meaningful sense, or are "relaxing with a well-funded team".
Does initial funding provide a minimal threshold so you can keep the lights on? Yes. Does it really make you any better off emotionally? Hate to break it to you, but no.
Raising a first round of cash takes away some stresses and gives you others, and on balance I don't think it makes a lot of difference in your overall happiness level. The stuff described in the article (getting married, having a kid, taking breaks here and there, etc) does.
> I'm looking for constructive feedback on what can make this a go-to replacement for awesome sites like jsFiddle.net and jsbin.com
This seems like the wrong goal. Nobody wants a replacement for an existing site, just because.
To quote Ashton Kutcher: Mark Zuckerberg will always be a better Mark Zuckerberg than you. You won't make a better jsFiddle by trying to be a jsFiddle.
Do something that jsFiddle.net and jsbin.com don't do, or do it much better (read: simpler). Quick idea: git access.
Hi atlassic, you are right on that point. Perhaps I have poorly articulated my request.
Plunker is different from those sites in one key respect (and several other smaller ways):
Each plunk is run as a first class web citizen
This means that XHR requests against files within the same plunk just work. Anything that would work as if the files were statically hosted on github pages would also work on this, making it an excellent and non-artificial testing ground for web snippets.
