pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (01/31/88)
In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <160@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) >demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do >can be turned into a right: 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. 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. In our society, that is not a 'priviledge' (something only granted to a certain subset of the population, and taken away if you don't toe the line). It is a 'right' (something any law-abiding citizen can expect, and will hopefully be upheld in a reasonable court of law). >< - 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! >< - The owner's right to make a living from the distribution and use of X >The second isn't a right, or anything else. The law grants you the >right to _try_ to make a living distributing X. It doesn't say whether >you'll succeed. 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) [This second being added in to further the point that I (the owner) am given control over sales of X. If you buy a copy of X from me, you own a copy, not the complete distribution rights!] >< - The owner of X has the moral right to say 'you may not have X if you >< will not pay for it, because sales of X are my livelihood'. > >Of course the owner has the right to say that. But that doesn't mean >he has the right to actually prevent you from obtaining a copy from >another source. Currently, he can *legally* prevent you from doing so. >That doesn't mean he's behaving morally in doing so. 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! ><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! I can forego any 'right' I have, any time I want! If *I* want to give something away, of course I'm allowed to! This is silly. [And please don't take things even further afield by arguing (the obviously true exception) that for a few things, society doesn't give me the right to give up my rights]. ><If this is not done, society is left without all forms of professional ><intellectual creation vocation. This would be rather serious! > - artists, including songwriters, authers (fiction), and others >Many of these people don't expect to make a living on the artwork they >do. How many artists do you know of whose works are now selling for >fortunes scraped by for most of their life, and died penniless? 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*! > - toolsmiths: programmers, architects, research firms & product testing > >...They [often] make money by contracting out to right the >original product, and then just hand the report (and copyrights) over >to whoever paid them to produce it. Many programmers work on the same ^^^^^^^^^ >scheme. So they got paid, and paid well. A fair and square deal. Then whoever paid them to produce X now owns X in all of its glory, and owns the distribution rights to X. > - Howto book (cookbooks, etc), and similar mass market people. >These people will have more problems. But currently, the cost of >copying a book is more than the cost of the paperback. People trying >to sell overpriced hard & tradebacks would probably loose sales. But >that doesn't kill the works of the authers, only restricts the format >they can publish in slightly. And there'll still be a market for >hardbacks & tradebacks in the presence of paperbacks & slightly more >expensive copying. After all, there is now. 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!!! > - money market watchers >These people tend to sell to a small, select audience by subscription >(overpriced, at that). Adding a license agreement to the affet that >you recieve the newsletter under the condition that you not give it to >anyone else is a minor matter. You may GIVE *it* (your copy) to somebody. *Copy*right law is in place already to control giving a *copy* to somebody. >Basically, the only thing lack of a copyright law kills is things >produced explicitly in hopes of making money by selling lots of copies >of something. My reasons for claiming why a minority of software >written fills that bill have already been posted. I believe the same >about everything else, with the possible exception of mass-market >books. And loss of coypright laws won't hurt mass-market paperbacks >worth noticing. 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. You seem to believe that if you purchase a COPY of something, you (should) also have the RIGHT TO COPY it. You should be allowed to start your own business selling it! (There is little difference in the affect on me whether you give copies of X away or sell copies of X: in either case, people who might buy a copy from me will get it from you instead!) >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. 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. Just a f'rinstance: it is worth my while to buy a book on X if I need to know about X for my job. If I'm not going to make money on it, then yes, I might go out and figure out how to write an X program, even though it has been done already. *Sure* I'd rather just have X for free. But it would be *SELFISH* and *GREEDY* of me to EXPECT the original creator of X to always give away her creations! (Just as society is frequently selfish and greedy to expect great teachers to work for a pittance. People's pay is already far out of proportion to the value of their work. Let's not make it worse!) > <mike Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) (02/02/88)
In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >>In article <160@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) >>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do >>can be turned into a right: > >A 'right' is only a 'right' if a society deems it to be so. It is TRUE! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Whats-his-name (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence) must have been confused when he talked about "inalienable rights" and said that it was "self-evident" that they existed. Glad we have you to clear that up for us. :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( l i n e s -- ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cute --John Cavallino The train is the same, only the time is changed. Ecce homo, ergo elk.
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/03/88)
in article <3313@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) says: > In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >>In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >>>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do >>>can be turned into a right: >> >>A 'right' is only a 'right' if a society deems it to be so. It is TRUE! > Whats-his-name (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence) > must have been confused when he talked about "inalienable rights" and said that > it was "self-evident" that they existed. Glad we have you to clear that up for > us. Excuse me? It seems some people have gotten themselves deluded into believing that anything they do IS a right. The Declaration of Independence is not a law. Its value is purely historical. It has no relevance to our current form of government, which originated in the Constitution over 10 years later. Legally, the only "rights" guaranteed you are those in the Constitution and in the various laws which have been passed by Congress over the years (e.g., the Voting Rights Act, etc.). What society thinks is irrelevant, except insofar as it is reflected in legislative action. First of all: THERE IS NO RIGHT THAT SAYS THAT YOU MUST BE PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED (e.g. for software that you have written). Such details must be explicitly written out into a contract to be binding. Contracts can and are enforced by law, and sometimes the courts can consider certain situations to contain an "implied" contract (e.g. if you eat in a restaurant, you are expected to pay for your meal). But contracts have no relation to the vague idea of "rights". There is no "right" to make a living, either. If you are hungry and miserable because you are an artist and nobody wants to buy your masterpieces, it is not your place to go storming the Capital with invective about imaginary "rights". In fact, when you get right down to it, there's not a helluva lot that the courts do consider to be a "right", and most of that applies only to the national government, not to the states and cities. So please, quit all this empty invective about "rights", calculated to make us all stand up and salute the American flag, hand over breast, and say 5 Pledge of Allegiances and singing fifteen Star Spangled Banner's. Please. I get tired of super-patriotic bull-cr*p calculated to make chest puff out in pride and mind go muddly with thoughts about how great our nation is. If you're going to argue about copyrights, argue from reality, not from some propoganda taught you in grade-school history classes (you know the ones I'm talking about -- all those history books that says the Commies are big mean people eaters, the Americans are the freeist and bestest people on earth, and so forth -- very common back during the 50's, which is probably when most of the people on this net grew up). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/05/88)
> in article <3313@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) says: > > In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > >>In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > >>>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do > >>>can be turned into a right: > >> > >>A 'right' is only a 'right' if a society deems it to be so. It is TRUE! > > Whats-his-name (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence) > > must have been confused when he talked about "inalienable rights" and said that > > it was "self-evident" that they existed. Glad we have you to clear that up for > > us. > > Excuse me? It seems some people have gotten themselves deluded into believing > that anything they do IS a right. > > The Declaration of Independence is not a law. Its value is purely historical. > It has no relevance to our current form of government, which originated in the > Constitution over 10 years later. > > Legally, the only "rights" guaranteed you are those in the Constitution and in > the various laws which have been passed by Congress over the years (e.g., the > Voting Rights Act, etc.). What society thinks is irrelevant, except insofar as > it is reflected in legislative action. > > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb > {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any > Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion > Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Also, see Hamilton's writings in defense of the ratification of the Constitution, where he argues, in essence, that just because a right is not explicitly declared, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. He points to New York's state constitution which contained no guarantee of freedom of the press, but no one doubted that such a right existed. This is a significant issue -- as the Bork confirmation hearings showed. (And by most any rational definition, Bork qualifies as a supporter of unlimited, or nearly unlimited democracy -- which is why he pisses off the left -- who also claim to be for unlimited democracy, but get angry when it actually happens, because they support unlimited democracy only as a tool for oppressing anyone who doesn't think "progressively" enough). That our government has largely ignored the IX and X over most of its history doesn't mean that our rights are only the ones declared. Clayton E. Cramer
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/06/88)
in article <1915@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says: > >> in article <3313@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) says: >> > In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >> >>In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >> >>>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do >> >>>can be turned into a right: >> Legally, the only "rights" guaranteed you are those in the Constitution and in >> the various laws which have been passed by Congress over the years (e.g., the >> Voting Rights Act, etc.). What society thinks is irrelevant, except insofar as >> it is reflected in legislative action. > Amendment IX > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed > to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > > Amendment X > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to > the people. Very interesting. But doesn't define what a "right" is. Do artists have a right to make a living at practicing their art? That's the question on hand. Practically, a thing isn't a right unless it's defined as such, either by the Constitution or by Congress. Theoretically, well... in my view, the only right we should have, is the right to do anything -- that doesn't physically harm someone. But that's most definitely not considered a right by the various governments (e.g. seatbelt laws, which restrict me from hurting myself). Followups to talk.politics.theory? -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/07/88)
In article <3206@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >during the 50's, which is probably when most of the people on >this net grew up. Well, from circumstantial evidence, I'd put it at the '70s or late '60s at most :-) -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame