brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/08/89)
A sentiment which one sees expressed on this net from time to time (particularly when complaining about a compilation copyright 8-) ) is the sentiment that everything (in terms of information) should be free and unowned, as that encourages the free flow of information. After all restrictions on distribution obviously reduce distribution, that's intuitively obvious, isn't it? Or is it? While the intuition seems right, there's a mountain of evidence that goes the other way. The world's most widely distributed, widely used pieces of intellectual property are, almost without fail, the owned ones, and in particular the commercial ones. This happens even in the presence of good quality, free, unrestricted competitors. Quick Multiple Choice Quiz: What is the most widely used spreadsheet? A) 1-2-3 B) Excel C) PC-Calc and all the others put together. What is the most widely used word processor? A) WordPerfect B) WordStar C) All the free ones put together. What is the most widely connected USENET site? A) UUNET B) att C) Whatever the largest free connections site is. What USENET site has the most netters? A) Portal B) Well C) ddsw1.MCS.COM For a counter example, what's the best selling book? A) Bible B) Guiness Book of Records C) 1988 RHF Annual ----------------------------------------------------------------- Time and time again the evidence shows that if you want to improve the flow of information, the information should either be owned, or backed by one of the world's most powerful religions. :-) This net is not a propertyless commune. People here are entitled to control and ownership of the fruits of their own labour. In fact, if you want a growing, thriving net, it's essential that they be so entitled. Ownership allows incentive for individual vision, for risk and for growth. Usenet is a cooperative, and a big one. But there is no rule that says that cooperatives are communes. Other than the rules that govern communications links paid for by the DCA, this is a fully commercial network, and commercial traffic flows over it constantly, with the blessing of netters. To think otherwise is to believe in some idealistic myth. I am sorry if this means that those who are dedicated to the commune view of the net will stop feeding rec.humor.funny to their downstream sites. Any site admin that does this is within their rights, of course. Feeds of rec.humor.funny are available from many sites, fortunately, including my own -- although I'm not the closest for most of you. If somebody cuts you off, I will try to help. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (02/10/89)
In article <2739@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >A sentiment which one sees expressed on this net from time to time >(particularly when complaining about a compilation copyright 8-) ) >is the sentiment that everything (in terms of information) should be >free and unowned, as that encourages the free flow of information. > > [...] > >This net is not a propertyless commune. People here are entitled to >control and ownership of the fruits of their own labour. In fact, >if you want a growing, thriving net, it's essential that they be so >entitled. Ownership allows incentive for individual vision, for risk >and for growth. > > [...] > >Usenet is a cooperative, and a big one. But there is no rule that >says that cooperatives are communes. Other than the rules that >govern communications links paid for by the DCA, this is a fully >commercial network, and commercial traffic flows over it constantly, >with the blessing of netters. To think otherwise is to believe in >some idealistic myth. I have to absolutely agree with Brad here. Ostensibly, Schlumberger pays for its Uunet subscription so that we can get stuff off of this net to help us turn a profit. It is not a "perk" for employees, nor a charitible contribution; it is a business expense. If it became the case that Schlumberger could not use anything from the net to make a profit (and I do not necessarily mean *resale* of USENET postings, but use of utilities, tools and information to create products), it would drop USENET like a radioactive rock. Many people here (probably not in industry) would have the net be communal property, and abolish profit. Funny, there was a similar great experiment in the Soviet Union, which now seems to be ending. Guess what? Profit won. Contrary to net.belief, "profit" is not a dirty word. OK, so you don't want somebody to come along, take that nifty polyphase recursive binary sort you submitted to the net out of the goodness of your heart, and turn it into a commercial product. Fine, put a copyright notice on it. Now you have legal recourse if they try. Don't put a copyright notice on it, and you have just published it in the public domain; your rights are considerably weakened. (If it was an oversight, you can recover your rights by taking steps to correct the omission.) Declare it "in the public domain", however, and ANYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WISH WITH IT! If you don't want all these nasty for-profit corporations to get their greedy, money-grubbing hands on your software (or your jokes for that matter), DON'T PUBLISH IT ON THE USENET! Spend your own resources, not ours, to disseminate your work; but don't expect Schlumberger or any other corporation to foot the bill for USENET, unless we can expect to get a return on investment. Now, some of you academic types might be thinking "Ok, pull the plug. Who needs you, anyway?" To that I say: Where do you think the vast majority of the really useful stuff in comp.sources.unix, comp.sys.sun, etc., comes from? No one remains a student forever (as much as some may wish they could). Many of the programs which were written by students are now supported by those same people, who are now in private industry. But I think most of the non-trivial stuff was developed by people in industry, to fill their own needs, and published to be of use to everyone. It isn't "free"; the company employing the author paid for that effort, and the USENET community benefits. Because it IS a community, the benefit is reciprocal when that company doesn't have to pay to create something someone else posts. There is no way the academic community alone could maintain USENET at its present level. The money isn't there, nor is the motivation. Look how quick Stanford was to drop rec.humor.funny. Not a corporation, a University; a supposed bastion of enlightenment and truth. Let's see what happens when they discover alt.sex, talk.bizarre, etc. You see the upshot of this, don't you? Anything which was sent to Brad for publication in rec.humor.funny without a copyright notice (assuming the joke was original) is in the public domain if published. *Any* of us can do whatever we want with the material, since Brad did not include any notice of copyright. If you really think you can make a buck from rec.humor.funny, I say "Go ahead!" Signature follows. Hit 'n' now. You have been warned! Greg Wageman ARPA: uunet.uu.net!sjsca4!greg (Temporarily) Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author. And the author wouldn't have it any other way.