ch@maths.tcd.ie (Charles Bryant) (04/13/89)
In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes: >Now back to software copyright. I think the philosophy expressed by a >Soviet writer some years ago in explaining the copyright laws of the >Soviet Republics is a good one. (Each of the 15 "Repulbics" has its >own laws). The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance >the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his >efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software. I think >that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is >important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no >cost at all). > Here is a justification for copyright: Copyright is for the benefit of the users of software (just as literary copyright and patent laws are for the benefit of the _public_). If there were no copyright laws far fewer programs would get written as it would not be commercially worth while. Copyright laws attempt to encourage the writing and marketing of products. (That was obvious - wasn't it :-) So: there need not be any idea of the publics 'right' to use software if it is thought that it would discourage software writers. (This is very difficult to prove - either way) >Software has all the attributes of a free good since the marginal cost >of making another copy is next to nothing. However, to qualify for a >free good it should also be of general usefulness. Thus I would >propose that the United Nations (or another international organization) >pay for the development of general purpose free software (editors, >compilers, spread sheets etc.). Taxes could be levied on computer >equipment to help pay for this (but the UN has no such authority at >present). They could also evaluate the existing free software and plan >improvements to it. To save development costs, they could get students >to work on it as class projects as well as recruit other volunteers. > I think this would be a disaster. An excellent justification for consumers paying producers is that there is *choice*. The consumers can select their producer. If there is a central committee who decide which are worthwhile projects, the consumer is denied the right to choose. This is why a 'capitalist' system works (and why monopolies are bad - the choice disappears). >The copyright laws on software need to be changed. Yes. But it is very difficult to devise a good system. (If I read a book on a subject that I know nothing about, and write a book on the same subject will I be sued for violating copyright? What if I read the source code for a program and then write a similar program?) -- Charles Bryant. Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers)