Hej Matze! Hej List,
What do you mean by ownership of speech? I never heard about this term. If we can first decide what this proposed concept means/is we have a better point of departure for our discussion.
No, I thought I while about your question and before I answer I have to now what you mean. But I give it a shot ;-)
1) The freedom to free speech (if you have this "speech" in mind) is a right. Everyone has the freedom to perform this right (*). No one can deny her/him that right. If you mean by "own" he has this right to free speech, yes, ownership (of the tight to free speech) makes sense. /Special case left aside, e.g, military secrets)
2) If you consider it as something what someone said in the past, it is different. I know that many of you consider software as free speech. But I disagree with that. Speech has the internal value of being heard. Speech shall send a message. If source code is speech you should have the freedom to send a message and claim authorship to it ;-). Everyone should have that freedom (which also can be a right). But, if someone only distributes the binary file and does not publish (talk out loud) the source code, they should also be allowed to do so.
In this case, ownership can be understood as the freedom to keep his speech confidential. This sounds ridiculous, at a first glance, but it is in the dual nature of software that this makes sense.
Maybe "speech" is only loosely applicable to software.
I took my main ideas for this from an article in the "Communication of the ACM". It it is called "A New View of Intellectual Property and Software". [2] Their they say that software "behaves".
But know I want to read what you think. ;-)
best regards, Axel
[1] http://robin.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20040227_eff_pr.php [2] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=227237&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFI...
(*) Please, do always keep in mind that I start from a pure theoretical concept. I know that freedom of speech is a illusion in many parts of the world. But I hold that it is necessary to agree on very basic and idelized concepts and then turn to the messy real world
Matthias Kirschner matze@mbwg.de schrieb am 22.04.04 10:45:19:
Hello, i read this conversation with great interest. Just one question:
- Axel Schulz axel@schulz.ph [2004-04-21 21:51:48 +0200]:
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of food, restricting the possibility to end physical hunger?
What do you think, does it make any sense to claim ownership of speech?
Thank you Matze
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 17:51 +0200, Axel Schulz wrote:
What do you mean by ownership of speech? I never heard about this term. If we can first decide what this proposed concept means/is we have a better point of departure for our discussion.
If you permit ownership of software, you permit ownership of language. Computer programming languages are a language understood by computer programmers, who usually write it fluently enough to create works.
If you restrict and allow ownership of software, you effectively restrict programmers' freedom of speech :) Yes, really!
Hugs, Rui
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Axel Schulz wrote:
Hej Matze! Hej List,
What do you mean by ownership of speech? I never heard about this term. If we can first decide what this proposed concept means/is we have a better point of departure for our discussion.
No, I thought I while about your question and before I answer I have to now what you mean. But I give it a shot ;-)
- The freedom to free speech (if you have this "speech" in mind) is
a right. Everyone has the freedom to perform this right (*). No one can deny her/him that right. If you mean by "own" he has this right to free speech, yes, ownership (of the tight to free speech) makes sense. /Special case left aside, e.g, military secrets)
- If you consider it as something what someone said in the past, it
is different. I know that many of you consider software as free speech. But I disagree with that. Speech has the internal value of being heard. Speech shall send a message. If source code is speech you should have the freedom to send a message and claim authorship to it ;-). Everyone should have that freedom (which also can be a right). But, if someone only distributes the binary file and does not publish (talk out loud) the source code, they should also be allowed to do so.
In this case, ownership can be understood as the freedom to keep his speech confidential. This sounds ridiculous, at a first glance, but it is in the dual nature of software that this makes sense.
Maybe "speech" is only loosely applicable to software.
I took my main ideas for this from an article in the "Communication of the ACM". It it is called "A New View of Intellectual Property and Software". [2] Their they say that software "behaves".
But know I want to read what you think. ;-)
I don't understand quite well the thread (maybe I'm too tired). Computer programs are writtings and the protection of the exclusive rights to these writtings is made via the Berne convention. Free speech can use any way of expression. Computer programs is a way of expression. "Expression" of something is covered by the Berne convention.
The author have the rights to apply these exclusive rights in the form he wants[*]. (from making copylefted Free Software to make proprietary software or confidential software)
adulau
[*] I don't include the various exception of the author right (and to some extent to the computer programs directive).
Hello Axel, hello list, I mean ownership of speech, language itselft. Can the capability to communicate with other people be owned? If you create a neologism, do you own this word? Can you forbid people to use this word in their daily language. When you don't allow other people to use your "tools of expression" there will be no progress, i beliefe. You are the author, the creator of that tool, but you don't own it. Software, in my opinion, is such a "tool of expression", without it you won't be able to communicate with other people and you won't be able to develop yourself further. If some people have the ownership of this tools, they can decide not to give it away. So I think software shouldn't have owners. I am looking forward to a lot of answers.
Best regards, Matze