Re: The copyright issue

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

Am 09.08.2010 18:16, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>  writes:
>
>    
>> Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>      
>>> Andreas Röhler<andreas.roehler@online.de>   writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>>>>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>>>>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>>>>> violating the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>>>>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
>>>> the contributors.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
>>> the contributors.
>>>        
>> Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.
>>      
> If nobody is willing to defend freedom, it goes away.  That's the whole
> point of the GPL and the fundamental reason of GNU.  Feel free to
> disagree, but preaching the opposite in a GNU mailing list is about as
> useful as trying to convince the Pope of preaching Islam.  His job
> description is just incompatible.
>
>    
>>> The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.
>>> If you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
>>> policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with
>>> freedom of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly
>>> unrelated to the topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use,
>>> if at all, examples that have anything to do with the point you are
>>> trying to make.
>>>        
>> Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.
>>      
> Are you for legalizing credit card fraud and bank fraud?  Your bank
> accounts are just information.

A possible crime may might be constituted with spreading information, 
not just possessing it.
Civilisation starts with the notion of difference between words and actions.

Words shall be free. No "hate speech" law may be part of culture, thats 
a barbarian style of politics.
Culture means freedom of speech, freedom of access to all kind of 
available info.

BTW in the mentioned time also laws have been passed here, making pure 
possession
of so called hacker tools a crime. Same play against basic rights.


>   Why would not some person be allowed to
> tamper with the information that constitutes your money?
>
>    
>> Jörg Taus did both.
>>
>> The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
>> legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
>> Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
>> respected et least in theory:
>>
>> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
>> expression; this right includes freedom to hold
>> opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
>> impart information and ideas through any media and
>> regardless of frontiers.
>>      
> But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
> actively participating in it and feeding it.

Really? Don't believe that. He states different.
What the grants against persecution of a member of Parliament are worth, if
its allowed to search his home and computers?


>   That is not the same as
> working for "freedom of information".
>
>    
>> Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
>> was changed, making already of possession of
>> information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.
>>      
> If the principal purpose of the crime is to create the "information" to
> be passed around into people's possession for money and other
> consideration, actively participating in a private network created for
> the purpose of swapping this kind of material is keeping the crimes
> going.
>
>    
>> Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
>> new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
>> child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
>> assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
>> and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
>> group in just this IT-, freedom of information related
>> matters.
>>      
> Apparently, he did not keep records on the level appropriate for an
> investigation, but merely on the level needed for personal access.
>
> It is fine to admire him for his stance in software patents, but that
> does not make his legal problems any more on-topic here.
>
>    
>> FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
>> matters very well.
>>      
> Utterly meaningless for this discussion.  Focus.
>
>