<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Richard Stallman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"> I don't think there is such a problem with "Functional works' though.<br>
Copyright applies only to the person doing the copying. If I have been given<br>
a copy of a dictionary then it becomes my dictionary to use as I like, as<br>
long as I am not making further copies of it.<br>
<br>
</div>In my opinion (which the Pirate Party may not agree with), works of<br>
practical use, which include dictionaries as well as software, ought<br>
to be free.<br></blockquote><div><br>The pirate party is a collection of individuals, so not all of us will agree to any point of view on any issue. My view is that artistic and functional works should be treated exactly the same; a short (5 or 10 year) copyright that applies only to 'distribution in exchange for money' commercial publishing. <br>
<br>Any non-commercial distribution (which I define as any distribution where the recipient does not have to pay any money, even if the distributor finds some other way of making money along the way) should be unrestricted.<br>
<br>And any use of the work that does not involve distributing a copy for money should also be unrestricted. (In my view though, PPV streaming etc counts as 'distributing a copy for money' because in the absence of any DRM system it will always be possible to retain a copy.<br>
<br></div></div>