dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/19/88)
In article <5866@thorin.cs.unc.edu> bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: >Company A? Who are they to fire you? :-) Whoops! :-) Reminds me of the guy who counted off the points of his argument "1", "2", "C"... I meant company X would fire me, of course. >That's the price of signing your life away to IBM... Or most other companies. Every computer company I have worked for had a non-disclosure/intellectual property agreement that looked exactly like IBM's. I call them "We own your brain" agreements. Most if not all computer companies have them. It's just that some companies are more aggressive about interpretation than others. IBM today is a highly litigous company with an adversarial relationship between management and employees. IBM once fired an employee for being married to an employee of a competing company! Of course, the employee eventually won the lawsuit against IBM, but it does show the attitude. And I think this happens to almost every computer company that gets large enough to have lots of lawyers, accountants and MBAs running it. I assure you that the moment it became known that I was cooperating with a person from DEC to write software for either them or for us, we would both be fired. Let's face it: information sharing between companies is a big no-no, save in cases like OSF where the participants have huge legal documents to cover their soft parts. I don't like the intellectual property agreements either. I would very much like to know what happened to the Berne convention that came before Congress earlier this year. Was it tabled, passed, or passed with the amendment IBM was lobbying for (namely, to remove the part that says you can't sign away your intellectual rights)? >>The group members get to submit ideas for new programs, and to vote on >>new programs (and money to write them) on a local, regional, and national >>level. > >So what is stopping people? There's nothing illegal about doing this. No, there isn't. I think that the major things stopping people from doing this are: 1. Very few people have thought of it (Richard M. Stallman and myself, that I know of - and it seems our ideas are quite different). 2. The current system has a lot of momentum - it's quite entrenched. It's often a lot easier to simply do things the way they've always done it. 3. Things have not yet reached the stage where only one license of a program is sold and all the rest is pirated. In such a situation, the *only* way for software people to get money would be a scheme such as mine or Stallman's. 4. Nobody who has thought of it has tried it yet. >The problem with your idea is that it is just as easy to not pay and get >the benefits as it is to pay, so most people won't. How does this differ from the current system? I, and everyone I have known, have not ever had the slightest difficulty getting pirated copies of software, when such is desired. >The loss of voice in what gets produced is countered by the fact that: >a) things of general interest will get produced anyay; >b) if it is of a much more specialized interest, the group probably won't > vote to produce it. Hmm. That sounds like a transitional problem to me. Also, it is not necessary that the group commission only one program; Money can be allocated to projects in proportion to their popularity or how much people are willing to pay for them. Perhaps the usergroup idea is a flop. Perhaps it would be better if the software people did it similar to the way the Altair people did their project, or the way the West Coast Computer Faire was started - advertise first, collect orders (and money), and then produce the product. There is nothing illegal about that if one does not mislead the customers into believing the product has already been built. Dan Hankins
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/88)
In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: > I don't like the intellectual property agreements either. I would very > much like to know what happened to the Berne convention that came before > Congress earlier this year. Was it tabled, passed, or passed with the > amendment IBM was lobbying for (namely, to remove the part that says you > can't sign away your intellectual rights)? This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can license it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it." I'm sorry, but if I own something (such as the fruit of my labors) and I want to sell it that's my right. I may be foolish for doing so, but any law that says I can't sell something is telling me I really don't own it. Why should Joe Handyman be able to sell those crude painted wooden ducks by the side of the road, but I can't sell a quick thirty-line program that took about the same amount of effort, should I wish to sell it. Or even give it away. > 3. Things have not yet reached the stage where only one license of a > program is sold and all the rest is pirated. In such a situation, the > *only* way for software people to get money would be a scheme such as > mine or Stallman's. Things don't have to get quite so bad to drive software companies out of business. > How does this differ from the current system? I, and everyone I have > known, have not ever had the slightest difficulty getting pirated copies of > software, when such is desired. I don't know anyone who would have the slightest difficulty in buying drugs, saturday-night specials, or explosives. I don't know anyone who would have the slightest difficulty vandalising any number of houses, cars, buildings, etc.... The argument that "It's easy to do this so it can't be that wrong" is just plain bull. People have no difficulty seeing the ethical problems with other illegal acts. As for "distributing the money according to the popularity of a product", why, isn't that what we do now? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) (12/21/88)
In article <3126@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: >> I don't like the intellectual property agreements either. I would very >> much like to know what happened to the Berne convention that came before >> Congress earlier this year. Was it tabled, passed, or passed with the >> amendment IBM was lobbying for (namely, to remove the part that says you >> can't sign away your intellectual rights)? >This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to >your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can license >it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it." I'm sorry, >but if I own something (such as the fruit of my labors) and I want to sell >it that's my right. I may be foolish for doing so, but any law that says I >can't sell something is telling me I really don't own it. I think what Dan wants is something like California Labor Code 2870 (Yea!) which basically says you cannot sign an employeement agreement where your employer gets the rights to things developed on your own time and with your own tools, unless it is a result or spinoff of work performed for the company. Dan has "signed his life away", if he's still working where I last had electronic contact with him, and he'd rather not have to. It's a lot like drug testing; sure, you could try to go to another employer without it, but unless it's illegal, all employers will probably have such. Not all of us have the guts to risk going independent. >Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net -Andrew Bell ------ Andrew Bell, living a double life at bell@cs.unc.edu and acb@cs.duke.edu "Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/22/88)
In article <5972@thorin.cs.unc.edu> bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: >I think what Dan wants is something like California Labor Code 2870 (Yea!) >which basically says you cannot sign an employeement agreement where your >employer gets the rights to things developed on your own time and with your >own tools, unless it is a result or spinoff of work performed for the >company. > >Dan has "signed his life away", if he's still working where I last had >electronic contact with him, and he'd rather not have to. It's a lot like >drug testing; sure, you could try to go to another employer without it, >but unless it's illegal, all employers will probably have such. > >Not all of us have the guts to risk going independent. Not all of us have the capital, either. California Labor Code 2870 sounds *perfect*. I wonder if I could get transferred to IBM Palo Alto and get them to let me sign a new Intellectual Property Agreement... yeah, that's the ticket! Seriously though, I heard that the Berne Convention was indeed passed. This alters my question to, "Did IBM's lobbying succeed, or is the passed law equivalent to CLC 2870?". Dan Hankins
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/22/88)
In article <3126@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B >Hankins) writes: >> ...stuff about desire for Berne convention deleted ... > >This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to >your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can >license it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it." No, that's not what I'm saying. I never said that it was *wrong* to sell software or that it should be unlawful to sell software. What I said was that software commerce in its present form is ineffective. I then proceeded to outline an alternative that might be more desirable. Under this alternative, things like the Berne convention might be less necessary, since employers would likely have less motive to prevent their programmers from doing work on the side. >I'm sorry, but if I own something (such as the fruit of my labors) and I >want to sell it that's my right. I may be foolish for doing so, but any >law that says I can't sell something is telling me I really don't own it. Of course you should be able to sell it if you want to. I did not propose a law outlawing selling software. I proposed a method of selling software services that might lead to less conflict, litigation, and piracy in the computer industry. >Why should Joe Handyman be able to sell those crude painted wooden ducks >by the side of the road, but I can't sell a quick thirty-line program that >took about the same amount of effort, should I wish to sell it. Or even >give it away. No reason. Just because I propose an alternative does not mean I want to outlaw the former option. In fact, giving away software would be a primary means of building up an author's reputation in my system. >> 3. Things have not yet reached the stage where only one license of a >> program is sold and all the rest is pirated. In such a situation, >> the *only* way for software people to get money would be a scheme >> such as mine or Stallman's. > >Things don't have to get quite so bad to drive software companies out of >business. No, they don't. Which is why I hope that my scheme, or something like it, is adopted by software companies soon. It might well save some. >I don't know anyone who would have the slightest difficulty in buying >drugs, saturday-night specials, or explosives. I don't know anyone who >would have the slightest difficulty vandalising any number of houses, >cars, buildings, etc.... All true. None of these is really relevant to the point I was making or responding to. The point I was responding to said: "No one will pay the contract price because they can just wait and copy the software when it comes out." My point was: "People already do this. The only considerations which currently stop people from copying software without paying are: 1. Support 2. Documentation 3. Ethics (*not* legalities) Copy protection does not stop people from copying software. The hardcore hackers will crack the program, and then it is as easy to get a copy as it would be for an unprotected program. Legal considerations do not stop people from copying software. The risk of being caught is too low and the punishment not severe enough (possibly non-existent). Legally, it's like speeding, only with lower risk and lower punishment. We all know how many people speed. The considerations that would prevent people from copying software without paying the contract price under my system are the same as the above three. The only real differences are copy protection and legality (since the distributor *chose* to put the program in the public domain, it is legal to copy it). And as we see from the above, those are not considerations for people who pirate under the current system." >The argument that "It's easy to do this so it can't be that wrong" is just >plain bull. People have no difficulty seeing the ethical problems with >other illegal acts. I never said that being easy makes something right. I think that using a program without paying for it is *wrong*. What I am saying is that it is no less easy to copy software under the current system than it would be under mine. And the ethics are the same. It might be legal to use the software without paying under my system, but it would not be ethical. >As for "distributing the money according to the popularity of a product", >why, isn't that what we do now? Nope. The better a program is, the more it is pirated. This offsets increases in price the author charges for additional quality/function. Dan Hankins
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/88)
In article <5972@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: > I think what Dan wants is something like California Labor Code 2870 (Yea!) > which basically says you cannot sign an employeement agreement where your > employer gets the rights to things developed on your own time and with your > own tools, unless it is a result or spinoff of work performed for the > company. I think this is a good idea, but it's not the same as the Berne Convention which, as near as I recall, has no concept of a "Work for Hire" at all and does not permit institutions to own any intellectual property. It's got some pretty weird distinctions between copyrighted works and artistic works, too... > Not all of us have the guts to risk going independent. You got that part right. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/24/88)
> In article <3126@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B > >Hankins) writes: > >> ...stuff about desire for Berne convention deleted ... > >This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to > >your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can > >license it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it." In article <12825@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes: > No, that's not what I'm saying. No, but that's what the Berne Convention is saying. That's the only part of your discussion I excerpted, and that's all I'm talking about. > I never said that it was *wrong* to > sell software or that it should be unlawful to sell software. And I never said you did. I just have a problem with the Berne Convention because I feel it will erode the market for my labor by making my work relatively less valuable to an employer and that of an independant contractor relatively more valuable. I am leary of the government's efforts to help me against the evil businesspeople, because in the past such efforts have made people's lots worse, not better. Now, if someone can clarify just what the Berne Convention does or does not say and/or imply about "Work for Hire", maybe we can make some progress before this turns into a flame fest. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/26/88)
In article <3148@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights >>>to your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You >>>can license it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell >>>it." >> No, that's not what I'm saying. >No, but that's what the Berne Convention is saying. That's the only part >of your discussion I excerpted, and that's all I'm talking about. Oh. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Your article sounded to me like you thought I was advocating piracy, which of course I wasn't. I didn't know that the Berne convention said that. I only had heard about the one part about author's rights, and my understanding of it was that one could not *in advance* sign away one's rights to future creations. One could, of course, sell or sign away the rights to individual creations after they are made. I'd certainly like to know more about the Berne convention in general, and what it means to us lowly programmers slaving our minds away for the big corporations. Dan Hankins