[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:35:59 +0100

Thufir Hawat wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
> > Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state
> > of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial
> > piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant and a
> > "little bit" pregnant.
> Who does accept the rationalization of piracy?  Be specific with an
> example. 


HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software. 

RMS: I don't call this copying "piracy", because that is a propaganda 
word. I don't think it is wrong to copy and share information. 
Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, 
just illegal. 

An unauthorized copy of a proprietary program has the same drawbacks 
as an authorized copy. If you want to make more copies and share them, 
you have to do it in secret; and you cannot get the source code. 

So I think that unauthorized copies are not much better than 
authorized copies. The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is 
that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the 
owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary. 


See also

"A defendant in a lawsuit who asks the federal government to intervene
in his case might be careful what he wishes for. 

The U.S. Department of Justice rejected over the weekend the argument
that the recording industry’s litigation against alleged copyright
infringers is unconstitutional. Charles R. Nesson, a professor at
Harvard Law School defending Joel Tenenbaum, a student at Boston
University being sued by Sony BMG Music Entertainment, had asked the
Justice Department in February to prevent copyright holders from
collecting statutory damages except from offenders seeking commercial

The Justice Department fiercely denied that request, in a 31-page memo
filed on Saturday. 

“The remedy of statutory damages has been a cornerstone of our federal
copyright law since 1790,” the agency said. Even copyright violations
not motivated by profits limit the legal distribution of protected work,
it said. “The public in turn suffers from lost jobs and wages, lost tax
revenue, and higher prices for honest purchasers.”

Mr. Nesson has argued that the penalties Mr. Tenenbaum faces, if he
loses the case, are grossly disproportionate: up to $150,000 for each of
the seven songs he is accused of illegally downloading. The Free
Software Foundation, in a legal brief on Mr. Tenenbaum’s behalf, cited
several recent cases to support the position that the recording
industry’s lost profits for each infringement — which it estimates at
$0.35 — should not prompt damages of more than 425,000 times that
amount. "

USDOJ's brief:


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]