mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (02/16/88)
[Just when you thought it was safe to go back into comp.sys.misc...] Having come back after a couple of weeks, I can pick up the crusade against copyright laws and shareware where I left off :-). All copyright law replies are here; shareware will be dealt with in a second article. >> What you have committed is called "theft of services". You will >> be fined and/or jailed when you are caught. Software provides >> its user with a service, just like cable TV or a time-share >> system. The fact that you only pay once for the service ( as >> opposed to monthly as with Cable, or as-used with time-share ) >> does not change that basic fact. Sorry, the analogy between a piece of software you *buy* and a service doesn't hold. Your claim is similar to the claim that in buying a car, I'm buying the "service" of transportation. While true if I rent the software or car, it's not true if I buy it. In the case of purchase, I'm buying an object. If it's a car, what I do with/to it is pretty much limited by what I'm physically capable of. Because of the oxymoron "intellectual property," there are strange restrictions on what I can do with a software I've purchased. >> Although their is dissent about whether some things should >> be written into law or not, there are other things about >> which their is no doubt about whether they should be illegal. >> The criteria by which these must-be-illegal things may be >> recognized is simple : Would the society ( as the members of >> the society perceive it ) become untenable if they were not ? Your criteria is very good. My (and others) claim is that society would be better off without copyright laws. While you make some good arguments for why theft-of-services (cable, etc) should be illegal, you don't make _any_ arguments about why there should be copyright laws. I'll provide things for you to talk about later. But first, to sidetrack to rights: >> A 'right' is only a 'right' if a society deems it to be so. It is TRUE! >> *Anything* you can do can be turned into a right, if society decides that it >> should be a right. This doesn't require a law necessarily, it simply requires >> society's approval. Ah - then 150 years ago, I would have had the "right" to own other human beings? At least in part of the US? Even if you believe this, then society obviously doesn't approve of the "copyright" as a right. Otherwise, people wouldn't be constantly violating it, and this whole conversation would probalby have never arisen. >> Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalistic society. Now I'm not an >> Econ major, nor Poli Sci, so I can't debate the niceities of capitalism... but >> at the very least, it is my understanding that in our society, people are >> supposed to be given the right to fair wages for their work. Correct - this is a right. But "fair wages" are something that are established between the earner and payer of those wages. This has nothing to do with copyrights. >> >< - The owner's right to control the distribution and use of X >> >> >The first of these isn't a right, but it is legally granted privilege. >> >I happen to think the laws in this case are wrong. >> >> See above. In the USA, these *are* 'rights'. If you don't agree with >> capitalism, I don't mind. You've got your work cut out for you if you >> want to change us into a communal society though! As I pointed out, copyright laws don't protect a right, even by your definition of right. And whether they are enforced has nothing to do with living in a capatilistic society. In fact, since copyright laws basically move a private function into the government, it can be argued that they produce a _less_ capitalistic society. I don't want to change to a communal society - I _like_ capitalism. I want the unethical (by at least one set of ethics) copyright laws removed. >> A nit, in this discussion. You are right, but it makes no difference to my >> argument. I have the right to try to make a living selling my X creation. You >> do NOT have the right to damage the value of X by endless duplication! You >> do NOT have the right to damage the value of X by making untrue disparaging >> remarks about it either! (c.f. various lawsuits with Consumer Reports, etc) It may be a nit, but it points out your using a false statement to try and support your points. For instance, you just assumed that I damage the value of some X of yours by making endless copies. Except for the loss of copyright, how does making endless copies of something damage it's value? Software still has the same functionality no matter how many copies of it exists. A painting is no less beautiful for there being three copies instead of one. A house keeps the weather out and possessions in no matter how many people own one just like it. >> But if you can't have a copy of X without paying for it, and I retain exclusive >> distribution rights to X, where can you get a copy? Anyone who gives you a copy >> is destroying my livelihood by taking away my society-given right to earn a >> living by distributing X! All true. That's why I don't condone the theft of software. But that doesn't negate the claim that "society" made a mistake in granting that "right" to you (quotes provided because in this case it society didn't grant anything, and the populace disagrees, and that definition for right is bogus). >> ><There are many positions that can be held wherein such property rights are >> ><given over to some other party (the State, the People). But in all cases, the >> ><original creator must be *paid* in some way for the transfer of these rights. >> >> >Oh, yeah, like RMS got paid for GNU emacs, right? >> >> You sure are good at introducing extraneous arguments! Only when you make false statements that support your argument. You said the original creator "must be paid." Obviously wrong, and I choose a well-know counter example. You apparently wish to correct your wording (in affect) to "has the right to payment." Where property is concerned, I'll agree. When you start trying to apply the oxymoron "intellectual property," I have to disagree. No property is being transferred, so there is no reason to make a payment. >> You are arguing that I only have the right to 'try' to make a living by >> creating. I agree! Teachers only have the right to 'try' to make a living by >> teaching. In both cases, they are usually underpaid, and may decide that they >> have to take a second job in order to earn enough. Just because an artist >> isn't earning enough from their art doesn't mean you have the right to >> make it *worse*! But I'm not trying to make it worse - I'm trying to make it _better_! For almost everybody involved. The only people who would really loose would be that minority of programmers making a living writing software specifically for resale. Artists will almost certainly benefit by no longer having to worry about accidently using something someone else already used, or by having to pay lawyers to play copyright games. Of course, if you can name artists (other than authers) who will loose a substantial portion of their income if copyright laws were rescinded, I'd like to know exactly what they do. >> Ahhh- but suppose I take the book you wrote, scan it into my computer here, >> make a nice laserprinted copy, and send it out to be published? Then I >> keep careful track of your marketing efforts, and undersell your publisher's >> price in all major markets, until your publisher gets tired and quits. Now >> I have the market and can set my own prices. In our society, my actions are >> not tolerated, because I don't own the distribution rights to your book!!! In that case, you have just become what in any other market is called "the competition." If you can really undercut my prices to the point of driving me out of business (without going bankrupt yourself), then I was charging to much. Of course, after I go out of business, if you raise your prices to much, you'll find someone playing the same game with you. This is called "the free market at work." >> You may GIVE *it* (your copy) to somebody. *Copy*right law is in place already >> to control giving a *copy* to somebody. Yup. And some of us are trying to fix that. >> Oh really? Lack of copyright law kills anything for which I want to make $$$ >> by selling a COPY without selling the RIGHT TO COPY (i.e. distribution rights). >> This covers everything I listed above, and a lot more. But this time, you didn't list _anything_. Nor did you bother trying to cover the flaws in the list I was replying to. Let's make it simple: What creative works are there that are made with the sole purpose of making dollars by selling lots of copies? Or, if you prefer, by selling a copy without selling the right to copy? Or maybe you can point out where those two questions are different? Exclude mass market paperbacks and software, as I've dealt with those several times already. >> You seem to believe that if you purchase a COPY of something, you >> (should) also have the RIGHT TO COPY it. Did you jump into the middle of this conversation? I stated the above outright several times. >> You should be allowed to start your own business selling it! Yes. Why should you be allowed a monopoly on selling the thing? Or do you really thing that IBM should be the only company allowed to sell IBM clones (either PC or mainframe)? >> >On the other hand, copyright laws tend to restrict the free flow of >> >information. This causes duplicated work, lost work, and numerous >> >other things generally considered bad for society. >> >> I think the most important word here is "free." Unfortunately, the world >> is overrun with individuals who think that their mere existence entitles >> them to benefit effortlessly from the efforts and accomplishments of those >> who are productive and creative. Leeches such as this can't be good for >> society. In fact, I think this "give-me-something-for-nothing-just-because- >> I-want-it" attitude is the major problem with the U.S. economy and will >> rapidly lead to our demise. Isn't rhetoric fun? Ok, I'll reword it: "copyright laws tend hinder the flow of information." Of course, I can be just as rhetorical, and reply: Unfortunately, the world is overrun with individuals who think that their having done a single creative thing entitles them to extort money from those of us who earn it for the rest of their lives. Leeches such as this [repeat rest of paragraph verbatim.] A better response to my comment about copyright laws is: >> No, it isn't copyright law that causes all these bad things. It is the >> unwillingness of people to (1) see if X has been done already, and (2) pay >> for somebody else's hard work. No, you _have_ to do 1. Even if you don't plan on paying for the software - you can't use what you don't know exists. As for paying for someone elses hard work: how much work is involved in creating a copy of a floppy. After all, that's all the work involved in creating the copy I get. What makes the act of having created a program (or whatever) so grand that the author has the right to prevent others from using that program over and above any wages that may have been agreed upon in advance? _Especially_ when balanced against the amount of work that will be repeated because the auther is being greedy? This is good for society? >> I have a hard time taking the "there is no such thing as intellectual property" >> people seriously, because of one simple observation: >> >> Before the days of personal computers and software for them, I don't _ever_ >> recall hearing _serious_ discussions about whether intellectual property >> (as in copyrights for books, records, etc; or patents for objects/processes) >> _existed_ - though I do recall discussion about how long such things ought to >> run and what was covered by them. You weren't listening in the right places, then. These discussion have become more pronounced because personal computers put the ability to make perfect copies into nearly anyones hands. DAT is going to make it even more common, and the arguments are going to appear in many places outside the computer industry. >> It is therefore hard for me to believe that this "philosophy" is motivated by >> anything more than rationalization. And what, pray tell, do you think I and rms (and others who come out publicly against intellectual property) are rationalizing? Please consider the libel laws before making a public statement. >> The law is set up to recognize the reality of intellectual property. Without >> such recognition, there's no way to protect those who create any work of >> creativity - be it a painting, a novel, or a spreadsheet program - from >> those who would rip it off and claim it as their own. Laws are only ignored >> by the unlawful. It may be silly to expect that people obey the law, but I >> still hope... If that's all the copyright laws did, I wouldn't have any problems with them. Claiming the work of another as your own is unethical, and should in all cases be illegal. But the copyright laws prevent me from _using_ that work, not just claiming I did it. >> > BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. >> >> You've sure spent a lot of net.bits arguing for it, though... If that's what you think I've been arguing for, you haven't been reading things very carefully. >> > You should play by the rules until you >> > manage to get them changed. >> >> Tell that to the crowd on alt.drugs. Different case, for at least two reasons: 1) Nobody is trying to earn a living based on the existence of the drug laws. 2) Breaking the drug laws doesn't provide any material benefit. Of course, there are groups trying to get the drug laws rationalized. Finally, for the benefit of those entering late, or not reading well, let me repeat: 1) I don't use stolen software (video/audio/computer), and don't approve of others doing so. 2) The drugs I'm addicted to aren't controlled, so I'm not breaking those laws either. <mike -- The handbrake penetrates your thigh. Mike Meyer A tear of petrol is in your eye. mwm@berkeley.edu Quick, let's make love before we die. ucbvax!mwm On warm leatherette. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
joe@logi-dc.UUCP (Joe Dzikiewicz) (02/17/88)
The primary problem of eliminating all intellectual property rights lies in their very reason for existance. Patents and copyrights (which are truly just different faces of the same coin) exist because society sees some benefits in creation of new products. Use of intellectual property rights is the only way to reward a creator with the benefits of his creation (short of the satisfaction of creation: I don't rule this out, it just happens that satisfaction doesn't pay the rent). Removing intellectual property rights would remove all incentive for companies to put money into research and development. After all, why should Spacely Sprockets put millions into developing a new widget when Amalgamated Amalgamations could turn around, produce the same kind of widget, and save itself the development costs? More to the point for those of us on this net, what would programming become if we removed intellectual property rights? If a programmer did not own what he produced, who would pay him to produce it? Admittedly, in the short term we would have more efficient distribution of what is now available. Since the controlling factor in the price of any commodity would be the manufacturing and distribution of that commodity, the most efficient at these tasks would prevail and prices would go down. By removing intellectual property rights, however, you remove all incentives to develop new products. Because, no offense guys, I don't think that the major developments in the software field would have occurred without major corporate backing. The hacker sitting at his home computer developing a product that revolutionizes the world, and doing so out of pure love of programming, is a myth. And yet, without intellectual property rights, we would depend on that hacker to make all of the new developments in software. And one other problem: if we remove any financial incentives to creation, we limit creation to those who do not need the financial incentives. I would hate to see writing, performing, and programming turned over to the idle rich, those who would not have to spend their time working to feed a family. So, in conclusion, removing intellectual property rights is a nice idea. Its only problem is that it would not work. Joe Dzikiewicz
coy@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stephen B Coy) (02/19/88)
Mike, In Message-ID: <6999@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> you write: >It may be a nit, but it points out your using a false statement to try >and support your points. For instance, you just assumed that I damage >the value of some X of yours by making endless copies. Except for the >loss of copyright, how does making endless copies of something damage >it's value? Software still has the same functionality no matter how >many copies of it exists. A painting is no less beautiful for there >being three copies instead of one. A house keeps the weather out and >possessions in no matter how many people own one just like it. I think the definition of "value" you are working with here is too narrow. Making endless copies of some software does not change its functionality. In fact it may enhance it by creating a larger user base out of which free enhancements and support may appear. But as a vendor selling a product in our capitalist society the value of a software product depends only on how much people are willing to pay for it. In this sense distributing free copies of the product most definitely damages the value of that product. Later in the same message you write: >But I'm not trying to make it worse - I'm trying to make it _better_! >For almost everybody involved. The only people who would really loose >would be that minority of programmers making a living writing software >specifically for resale. What about those of us that benefit from using software that was specifically written for resale? Do you honestly think that the commercial software that is available now would have been developed had there been no chance of financial return? Example: I bought a copy of Aztec C form Manx. I like the product, use it regularly, and feel that I got my money's worth. Now for the big question: Would Jim Goodnow have developed Aztec C to the point it is now without the chance of financial return. I don't think so. Even if he wanted to would he be able to do so? He produces retail software for a living and works full time doing so. If he had to do other work he wouldn't be able to devote as much time to his compiler and we would all be worse off. >The handbrake penetrates your thigh. Mike Meyer >A tear of petrol is in your eye. mwm@berkeley.edu >Quick, let's make love before we die. ucbvax!mwm >On warm leatherette. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET Stephen Coy uw-beaver!ssc-vax!coy Disclaimer: I don't know Jim, I have never talked with him. My comments about him are strictly best guess. Maybe if he reads this he can post a comment about how he sees the situation.
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (02/20/88)
How people can jump into the middle of a converation without having read any of the previous articles is amazing. Is there any points this guy makes that (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) hasn't covered. Are people getting the feeling there isn't anything new to say on this subject? In article <102@logi-dc.UUCP> joe@logi-dc.UUCP (Joe Dzikiewicz) writes: > =Removing intellectual property rights would remove all incentive =for companies to put money into research and development. After =all, why should Spacely Sprockets put millions into developing =a new widget when Amalgamated Amalgamations could turn around, =produce the same kind of widget, and save itself the development =costs? Are you talking IBM clone? =If a programmer did not own what he produced, who would =pay him to produce it? At our company the programmers don't own anything they produce. The company doesn't care who owns it either. They only care about using it. I doubt the fact that somebody else is using our accounting software lowers the values of ours. We produced it because we wanted it.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith, Knowledgian) (02/25/88)
< all, why should Spacely Sprockets put millions into developing < a new widget when Amalgamated Amalgamations could turn around, Who is Amalgamated Amalgamations? Anyway, I think Spacely Sprockets has more to worry about from Cogswell Cogs. -- Tim Smith "Learn to juggle while it's still legal" tim@ism780c.isc.com -- bumper sticker
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (03/14/88)
In article <102@logi-dc.UUCP>, joe@logi-dc.UUCP (Joe Dzikiewicz) writes: > [stuff about "intellectual property"] > More to the point for those of us on this net, what would programming > become if we removed intellectual property rights? For me, at least, it would be much more enjoyable. I'd no longer have to worry about "did I borrow any licensed code when writing this" when considering posting something. > If a programmer did not own what he produced, who would pay him to > produce it? Gee, I dunno, maybe someone who wants it working? I have written several things which I have made freely available. McGill pays me to write such things because they get problems solved. The things I write would solve these problems just as well if all notions of "intellectual property" disappeared. > By removing intellectual property rights, however, you remove all > incentives to develop new products. As someone else said, "can you imagine a world in which nobody was motivated to develop a better tool than <name deleted>"? The motivation for me to develop most of the software I write is not profit. It is simply wanting to have the thing to use. If other people like it too, great. What's more, a few of us actually do appreciate software as a thing in its own right, independent of any use it may have. I have written some programs simply because they looked like nice programs, regardless of any apparent need for them. Most of these have of course lain idle, doing nothing. > The hacker sitting at his home computer developing a product that > revolutionizes the world, and doing so out of pure love of > programming, is a myth. And yet, without intellectual property > rights, we would depend on that hacker to make all of the new > developments in software. Such hackers are not myths at all. They are where much of the first great push came from for the microcomputer industry. The first version of Emacs was written by just such a person, though on a computer at MIT (as I understand it) rather than a home machine. (That difference is irrelevant, as far as I can see.) Now? GNU Emacs (the latest and greatest Emacs) is the best general-purpose editor in existence. And it's free. Written because someone wanted it badly enough to sit down and do it, knowing the result would be free. > And one other problem: if we remove any financial incentives to > creation, we limit creation to those who do not need the financial > incentives. Yes, but this doesn't necessarily imply... > I would hate to see writing, performing, and programming turned over > to the idle rich, those who would not have to spend their time > working to feed a family. One, destroying the legal phantom of intellectual property does not necessarily mean removing all financial incentives to creation. Two, even if it did, it does not imply that programming (and writing, and other such endeavors) would be turned over to the idle rich. Even now, there are a great many hobbyists who do programming (or writing, or whatever) as a sideline, and hold down a "normal" job to pay the rent. Destroying intellectual property would do nothing whatever to these people. Three, even if this did turn the creative arts (writing, painting, programming, etc) over to the idle rich, this might not necessarily be bad. (I suspect it would be, but we'd have to try it to see.) der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu