mwynd@Bbn-Unix.ARPA (04/15/84)
From: Michael Wynd <mwynd@Bbn-Unix.ARPA> Re: >Sender: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> >Message-ID: <8404142228.427.0.VT2.2@vortex.UUCP> >... >In any case, I fail to see how any of this applies to the cretins who >steal software, Xerox entire books and magazines, and in general >sponge off the rest of society because they somehow feel that *they* >are the ones who should determine how much a product should cost. >... >--Lauren-- Sorry, Lauren, but *they* do. I set the price on hundreds, probably thousands of books (as Group VP for Higher Ed, Addison-Wesley) during the period when "Xerox machines" were invading the world. Many things contribute to this decision, naturally. (The costs do not, however, for they are sunk by the time of pricing.) In any case, an upper limit (and the price tends to the limit) is fixed by an estimate of the number of individuals whose utility function will argue for buying rather than Xeroxing. "Buying" includes buying second-hand, of course. [Oh, high dudgeon came as quickly to publishers--and no small number of authors--at the drop of "second hand' as at the drop of "Xeroxing"...] I have seen nothing new in any "discussion" of software piracy that wasn't played through in the 60's about Xeroxing. The Lotus-Rixon outcome is a direct analogy to the Taiwan piracy, for example, of Sears-Zemansky. In the end software piracy will become, I conjecture, a trivial issue (as Xeroxing of books is now a trivial issue) when the price of software finds its natural level. For "pricing" and "piracy" are (mostly) functions of natural laws, not the laws of men. The mores of men are, of course, important, but as a price setter I think (thought) of them as part of nature (behaviors). Moral and political questions are something altogether different--and to my mind, more interesting. E.g.: >From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!felix!zemon@Ucb-Vax.ARPA >Article-I.D.: felix.228 >... > Given that a program was originally sold with a > copyright notice and that the original purchaser was > aware of the copyright notice, how can you justify > breaking the copyright laws? >... >Fed up with people who claim that breaking the law is OK, > > Art Zemon Aren't you a little quick on the fed-up-er, Art? Think of prohibition (an old one... a current one...), think of Vietnam and the draft, think of parking laws (well, I guess that won't do any good if you aren't familiar with Boston folkways about parking tickets), then think of the auto speed laws, now would you like to try for the Brit laws and the American Revolution (a privateer is not a pirate?)... There are two general categories of justification for breaking the law: 1) The scofflaw: Laws are for suckers. 2) The idealist: The law is wrong. The second is the interesting one, of course. The underlying question, as I see it, is: Is information part of the commons? Is it morally and politically proper for information to be free as air? Many will argue, but I think the history of civilization shows a gradual progress toward a clear, "Yes". Not without regression, often evidenced by flames (Alexandria, Germany in the 30's, and maybe this one). Look at the jurisprudential history of the copyright and the patent laws. (Very different matters, I know, but alike in this.) I think you will find a strong theme throughout that is very different from the commonly assumed "protection of private property". In both cases there is a continuing motivation on the part of the legislating cultures to make the ideas part of the wide public domain. Both sets of laws intend to trade a temporary ownership by an individual for an eventual, eternal, "ownership" by the whole of civilization. Without this trade, without this incentive, it is argued, the ideas would remain secret and die with their originator. There are many cases of patents which are NOT applied for so that the inventor (often a corporation) need not let the competition know how they do it. (Analogous cases for copyright aren't possible; here the argument has to appeal to the general case, the pay-off matrix, and what we lose as a culture through the author's silence.) Thus if the copyright laws intend to give a fair return to the author (et al) in return for eventual ownership by the public at large, laws which protect an unfair return are wrong--so the argument would go. And "... arguments based on the high price of software" are of the essence. [> Note when answering that no part of the copyright laws > provides for protection only of products with a reasonable > price to value ratio. Therefore, arguments based on the > high price of software are completely irrelevant. > -- Zemon" ] In every darkness there is a glimmer of light... >From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA> >... >It is entirely feasible that if copyright protection for >software didn't exist, some other kind of economic scheme >would develop, most likely around maintenance and >distribution of software, handholding and other consulting >services and so on. In the mean time, society would benefit >since instead of writing still another... There's an idea worth, in my putatively humble view, putting some energy into. Richard Stallman, where are you now and what are you doing?
ABN.ISCAMS@Usc-Isid.ARPA (04/16/84)
I've followed the discussion re Software Piracy, ethics, law, morality, and copying cars with great interest. (Most action this net has seen in quite a while.) Learned a lot and gained much to think about. However Michael Wynd's message was the most enlightening and interesting of all. My compliments, sir. An excellent job of (1) extracting appropriate comments (and NOT totally misreading them), and (2) making worthwhile, meaningful comments in return. Thank you very much. David Kirschbaum Toad Hall (ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID)
GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA (04/17/84)
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ@Mit-Mc.ARPA>
Date: 15 Apr 1984 11:33:03 EST (Sunday)
From: Michael Wynd <mwynd at Bbn-Unix.ARPA>
...
There's an idea worth, in my putatively humble view, putting some
energy into. Richard Stallman, where are you now and what are
you doing?
RMS is not on info-micro, so you likely won't hear from him. I can tell
you exactly what he's doing. He is writing a public domain Unix called
GNU. Given the current state of copyright laws, this is the only morally
defensible reaction to obscene software pricing. It's also a good example
of monumental waste and harm to society caused by the laws -- I can
certainly think of much better uses for a few years' worth of RMS's
considerable talents than having to re-do something that's already been
done simply because the original is not made generally available.alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (04/22/84)
> RMS is not on info-micro, so you likely won't hear from him. I can tell > you exactly what he's doing. He is writing a public domain Unix called > GNU. Given the current state of copyright laws, this is the only morally > defensible reaction to obscene software pricing. It's also a good example > of monumental waste and harm to society caused by the laws -- I can > certainly think of much better uses for a few years' worth of RMS's > considerable talents than having to re-do something that's already been > done simply because the original is not made generally available. I agree. It's wrong for a company to make a return on its R&D investment. Remeber, real programmers program for fun, not for profit. If people would just stop working for an honest buck, and start leaching off others, then the world would be a much better place. Alan S. Driscoll AT&T ("Evil Capitalist") Bell Laboratories