foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) (04/17/89)
Brief summary of contributions to the subject
"New Communicational Morality"
Considering the many reactions to my posting about the above subject, I
feel I should at least try to summarize. Sorry I can't mention the names
of everybody who brought up a certain idea.
Only few contributors gave numerical marks; they were all negative, with
emphasis on the third maxim ("non-commercialization of culture").
With regard to the first maxim ("rejection of informational pollution")
several people claimed that information can always be avoided and therefore
does not "pollute". Some suggested that the maxim comes close to or
thoroughgoingly equals censorship. Because this really surprised me I
suspected a mistake in my translation; so yesterday I turned to a profes-
sional linguist to check the meaning of the term "morality". After con-
sulting various dictionaries we agreed that it has to do with more or less
generally accepted principles that are backed by this public consent but
not enforced by legislative power. Therefore nobody need feel threatened
by such a discussion or impute dictatorial intentions on somebody else.
Maybe it annoyed some contributors that the word "law" was mentioned in one
of the maxims.
Others agreed that information is perceived not only intellectually but
also emotionally and that there is not always choice involved. This is a
field where censorship would indeed be hard to exercise and probably amount
to injustice and restrictions for all; yet it is also a field where a
change in morality (i.e. a change in the way people look upon matters)
could do a lot of difference. It is hard to ignore commercial spots; yet
if people would consider purely manipulative spots (i.e. such without any
real information) as a point to the disadvantage of the product, this might
give producers (and advertising agencies) something to think.
The second maxim ("priority of the communication process") was perhaps the
least well understood for its abstract formulation. This might also be my
fault because I did not respect this very priority -- I might have studied
my English school books a little more closely before (or instead of :-)
posting the original article. Perhaps it was to be expected in a largely
English-speaking community such as the USENET that linguistic problems are
considered negligible -- yet consider the following example: When last year
I was going to publish a scientific article in German, my boss told me "no-
body will read it, unless you translate it into English". Doesn't this
show that the communication process is less a matter of course than is
sometimes supposed, and that labor has to be invested into it as well as
into the communicated work itself? Sorry for bringing a new aspect into a
"summary" -- it really shouldn't be new, but since only few seem to have
got the meaning, I felt I should explain a little.
The third maxim caused the most vivid discussions, especially among those
who professionally produce and sell software and who (rightfully) asked how
they were supposed to earn their living without copyright-protecting laws.
David Lawyer, who brought up "the public's right on software", made the
proposal that some instance or organisation might distribute software and
see that authors got paid for what they produce. I might add that in my
country (Fed. Rep. Germany) there *is* an organisation that does just this
-- collect money from people who present some copyrighted piece (e.g. of
music) in public and distribute that money among the holders of copyrights.
They even charge money on empty musicassettes sold -- because somebody
might copy something copyrighted onto that cassette. All this shows that
simply forbidding all copying of copyrighted information doesn't seem to
solve the problem; yet the system certainly is not perfect, nor could it
easily be taken over to the SW market.
Considering how large a spectrum of opinions showed in the reactions, I
feel the discussion was not quite unprofitable -- I have certainly profited
from it, and should like to thank everybody who contributed to it.
--
Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | "Lasciate ogni speranza,
foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | voi chi entrate!"
[ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ] | (Dante, Inferno)lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (04/19/89)
From article <825@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, by foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier):
"
" With regard to the first maxim ("rejection of informational pollution")
" several people claimed that information can always be avoided and therefore
" does not "pollute". Some suggested that the maxim comes close to or
" thoroughgoingly equals censorship. Because this really surprised me I
" suspected a mistake in my translation; so yesterday I turned to a profes-
" sional linguist to check the meaning of the term "morality". After con-
" sulting various dictionaries we agreed that it has to do with more or less
" generally accepted principles that are backed by this public consent but
" not enforced by legislative power. ...
You and this professional linguist need a better dictionary. A moral
principle may perfectly well be enforced by legislation. You should not
take the word of a professional linguist on a matter like this, unless
all you are interested in is the question of how a term has been or is
most commonly used, and the linguist happens to be a lexicographer who
has investigated that particular matter. As a professional linguist,
let me assure you that there is no accepted theory of linguistics and no
special expert knowledge that bears on the matter.
It's still a mystery to me why censorship in the name of some putatively
moral principle should not be called censorship.
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edumjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) (04/27/89)
After reading Prof. Foessmeier's summary of the discussion on Prof. Frank's "New Communications Morality" I came to the blinding conclusion that I (and most of the other people who replied) had missed an essential point and an essential word. That word was "morality". Most of the postings seemed to assume that the subject was "law". Is it a peculiarly American state of mind that we cannot discuss such a subject in terms of voluntary restraint? That, for instance, complaints about commercial television cannot be talked about in terms of trying to persuade broadcasting stations to change their standards? That discussions of software copyrights cannot be talked about in terms of trying to persuade people that sharing algorithms might sometimes be profitable? Does it have to do with the litigiousness of our society? Do most of us assume that no one will conform to any moral standard unless it is legislated? -- Michael McClennen
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/29/89)
In article <13237@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU#, mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen) writes:
#
# After reading Prof. Foessmeier's summary of the discussion on Prof. Frank's
# "New Communications Morality" I came to the blinding conclusion that I (and
# most of the other people who replied) had missed an essential point and an
# essential word. That word was "morality". Most of the postings seemed to
# assume that the subject was "law". Is it a peculiarly American state of mind
# that we cannot discuss such a subject in terms of voluntary restraint? That,
# for instance, complaints about commercial television cannot be talked about
# in terms of trying to persuade broadcasting stations to change their standards?
# That discussions of software copyrights cannot be talked about in terms of
# trying to persuade people that sharing algorithms might sometimes be profitable?
# Does it have to do with the litigiousness of our society? Do most of us assume
# that no one will conform to any moral standard unless it is legislated?
#
# -- Michael McClennen
Perhaps its because the two political factions that run American
politics -- conservatives and liberals -- can't think in any
terms EXCEPT legislating morality. Those of us who would prefer
the government not run everything have become rather skeptical
of anyone who talks about "morality", since it seems likely that
the following sentence will be "I'm from the government, and
I'm here to {help you, make you a better person, solve all the
world's problems}."
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!