[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Félix Robles]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Christian Hufgard
<pp at christian-hufgard.de>wrote:

>
> Félix Robles wrote:
> > Well, I agree with you on the critics against Christian. The thing is,
> > pirate parties don't think Intelectual Property is a good term, we refuse
> > it. Instead, we talk about author's rights. The authors have some rights,
> > but as RMS has said, they don't have (or shouldn't have) the right to
> stop
> > listeners/audience from sharing their music/work.
>
> So why is music so much less worth to be protected than software? If I'd
> breach the GPL, Richard would be right in front of those who accuse me
> for.
>
> Why has a GPL programmer more rights than a musician?



They should have the same freedoms, but with certain differences because
software has some differences with music, movies or books. Those are the
freedoms a GPL license gives, according to GNU:


   - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
   - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do
   what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
   this.
   - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
   (freedom 2).
   - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and
   modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community
   benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


The reason to make the code avaible with the software is that otherwise it
would be very difficult to improve the software. But you don't need any code
to modify a song or a book for example, that's the main difference. So a GPL
programmer does not have more rights than a musician, he has exactly the
same freedoms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091030/3148bf07/attachment.htm>