Re: [fsf-community-team] Question

[Simon Bridge]

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 16:56 +0800, Peter Rock wrote:
> A question - Regarding the ACTA issue, do we see any problems with
> applying the term "counterfeit" applied to unauthorized copies of
> software?

Pretty much - "counterfeit" is usually applied to currency but has also
applied to art, and consumer goods, such as the Mona Lisa or designer
brands. Neither of these would be covered by, say, copyright. (Some sort
of source identifier is normally used, covered in trademark law in the
case of consumer goods.)

It is tempting to apply the same reasoning by analogy to other works of
art like movies or books. To object we'd need to be able to claim that
treating unauthorised copies as counterfeit is not legitimate.

It is certainly harmful. It would allow a defacto continuation of
copyright in perpetuity by adding another restriction to our civil
rights.

> Also, perhaps with this idea promoted by Microsoft that
> users are at risk using "counterfeit" copies of Windows we should
> interject and note that the risk exists primarily in the use of
> nonfree software, not unauthorized software. It is absurd for them to
> suggest that users are in danger but would otherwise be safe with
> authorized nonfree copies. Just a thought.

Nice redirect, and probably worth trying.

This is an example of directing attention to the specifics to highlight
an issue - in this case, what is the risk of?

I imagine that MSs position is that users are at risk of actian from MS:
lawsuits, inablilty to get security patches etc, as well as from
possibly inferior, compromised, or damaged goods (much as fake designer
clothing may have inferior workmanship or materials).