Comment Copyright laws fail the common sense test (Score 2) 30
I respectfully disagree with your statement about books not having a source. By the popular definition of source, or source code, you are correct.
Like software, the source or inspiration of a book lay within the mind of the author. I've stopped referring to software as a "program" anymore for just this reason - the program is abstract, in the mind of the creator. The implementation is what we find as C, C++, etc. code.
Copyright laws make no sense from a philosophical perspective, which leads me to believe that the free software movement is philosophically grounded rather than based on a rebellion against corporate America or hate for authority in general. Think of it this way: As I write this comment, the "sources" for it are my thoughts. My thoughts are free, and it's perfectly acceptable that someone else may have a similar inspiration and write a similar comment.
Copyright laws, as currently enforced, attempt to protect the inspiration for something, whether a book or software. To me, this is nonsensical. What they _should_ protect is simply the implementation of ideas, not the inspiration behind the implementation (which could strike another person as well).
If I design a software implementation of an algorithm to digital encode audio from my own thoughts, without pirating someone else's implementation, why should I have to fear a lawsuit from a foreign company who also designed a means to encode audio? The copyright laws are tipsy-turvey, and ultimately only serve to protect the jobs of corporate lawyers and line the pockets of pointy-hair types.
Like software, the source or inspiration of a book lay within the mind of the author. I've stopped referring to software as a "program" anymore for just this reason - the program is abstract, in the mind of the creator. The implementation is what we find as C, C++, etc. code.
Copyright laws make no sense from a philosophical perspective, which leads me to believe that the free software movement is philosophically grounded rather than based on a rebellion against corporate America or hate for authority in general. Think of it this way: As I write this comment, the "sources" for it are my thoughts. My thoughts are free, and it's perfectly acceptable that someone else may have a similar inspiration and write a similar comment.
Copyright laws, as currently enforced, attempt to protect the inspiration for something, whether a book or software. To me, this is nonsensical. What they _should_ protect is simply the implementation of ideas, not the inspiration behind the implementation (which could strike another person as well).
If I design a software implementation of an algorithm to digital encode audio from my own thoughts, without pirating someone else's implementation, why should I have to fear a lawsuit from a foreign company who also designed a means to encode audio? The copyright laws are tipsy-turvey, and ultimately only serve to protect the jobs of corporate lawyers and line the pockets of pointy-hair types.
