RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Richard Outerbridge) (08/18/89)
I sent this to Richard Stallman last week and he suggested I try and publish
it somewhere. This, then, is my first attempt at publication. Comments,
feedback, etc., would be appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Copyrights Are A Foolish Bleat Against the Laws of Physics
or
(Those Who Can Do, Those Who Can't Become Economists)
A Piece of Heresy from Richard Outerbridge
------------------------------------------
In the past we recognized but two forms of existence. Matter and
Energy. The capitalists, the socialists, and the communists all
squabbled over these.
Then we became aware of a third form. Information. It was very
different from the other two forms, but we didn't really pay much
attention to this. We lumped it in with the rest and the capitalists,
the socialists, and the communists all continued to squabble.
In the discussion which follows we will ignore Socialists. Clearly,
they don't have the cojones to take a real stand one way or the other.
The communist believes that private property is an offensice concept.
Everyone, according to high communist doctrine, must own everything
equally. All well and good until such a time as I wish to eat that
macadamia nut chocolate chip cookie which is sitting in front of me
and chase it down with the last bottle of 1856 Chateau de Bermudez
remaining in the world.
Dealing with the claret is simple enough. Given 1 litre of wine, and 5
billion people presently on the planet, my share amounts to 0.0000002
millilitres. The calculation involved for the cookie may prove
intractable. The calculation involved for almost everything will
likely prove intractable. Solutions are, of course, possible but a
sacrifice of principle to expediency is always involved (and we aren't
all engineers - some of us might object). It seems fairly obvious that
communism flies in the face of the universe which gave birth to it.
Does that mean that capitalism wins be default? Sorry, Mr. Keynes, it
isn't quite that easy. I think a short story might best illustrate my
point here.
If I have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10 information
pellets, and you have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, (and a
gun), you can take all of my matter pellets away and I will have none.
You will then have 10 more matter pellets and I will have 10 less. You
can do the same with my energy pellets. Your gain is my loss. You
can't deprive me of my information pellets though (not without mashing
up my brain). What you can do is persuade me to let you make a copy of
them for yourself. In order to do this you will have to spend one of
your energy pellets on copying costs. If you didn't take my other
pellets, I will have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10
information pellets. You will have 9 energy pellets, 10 matter
pellets, and 10 information pellets.
pellet. From my point of view, though, it cost me nothing to let you
copy my information pellets. I can quite happily share my information
pellets equally with everyone (and if I use a chain letter
distribution scheme the demands on my time are negligible).
Information behaves very much like a communist invention (admitedly,
the present day communist states haven't clued in on this yet).
I was brought up to be a capitalist however. So should I be allowed
to insist that you give me a matter pellet before you can copy my
information pellets? That would be very nice for me indeed. Have we
finally found a way to avoid the zero-sum game? Can I sell you
something which you are totally free to use as you please and at the
same time retain full ownership of it myself? What is the meaning of
ownership? Doesn't this create the potential for me to attain
near-unlimited wealth? What happenned to the good old Puritan Work
Ethic (or its cousin the Risk Involved in Investment)?
More to the point, how does one go about keeping track of who owns
what information and who they are allowed to share it with (never mind
the problem of checking everyone to see if they have any information
they don't have permission to have)? This seems every bit as
intractable as our previous little problem. Can the forces of
capitalism come up with a practical solution (and we won't pretend the
honour system is practical)?
The answer is an obvious one. What would the world be like if we could
copy Porsche's, Tropical Islands, and Lobster Tails as easily as pages
of information? Could anything other than communism prevail?
Copyright laws are designed to prevent the theft of ideas, but what sort of
theft is it which leaves the victim undiminished?
There will be those who would apply my arguments to movie theatre
owners. Is it not wrong that I should sneak into their building
without paying? Indeed it is. But I should be charged with
tresspassing, and not theft, for I took nothing with me when I left.
I have been a computer analyst and programmer for many years. I am
paid to create information. Information which is needed by those who
hire me. Information which they can use to help them with their
chosen activities. I am paid matter pellets in direct proportion to
the time I spend in creating the information. If a third party
approaches me and requests a copy of the same information I have
already been paid to create, why should I demand money of this third
party as well? Is this anything less than greed? The dream of getting
something for nothing?
The solution is clear, and the nice thing about it is that everyone
will probably hate it. If we accept the fact that matter pellets and
energy pellets are inherently capitalistic, and information pellets
are inherently communsitic, it should not prove all that difficult to
come up with a new economic philosophy which is in harmony with the
laws of the universe (the laws which really matter - no apologies for
the pun - its the price you pay for reading my stuff). The new
philosophy (let's call it Bimorphism - or name it after me if you want
something more unique - no one in my family has ever left their name
anywhere - except for a rather ordinary crossing in New York).
I have no doubt that a practical application of Bimorphism will be no
walk in the park, but at least those working toward such a goal will
be working with the Universe's grain rather than agin it.
My hat is off to another Richard, Richard Stallman, and to GNU (Gnu's
Not Unix, but also Gnu's Natural to the Universe) for their obvious
realization of most of these observations many years ago.rodney@IPL.RPI.EDU (Rodney Peck II) (08/18/89)
Thank you for the posting. It is VERY good. I hope some people read it and get a new perspective on things. I'm going to print it out and force people to read it whenever they ask me about Gnu. Thanks again, Rodney
jclark@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Jeff Clark) (08/18/89)
In article <8908181535.AA08568@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Richard Outerbridge) writes:
I have been a computer analyst and programmer for many years. I am
paid to create information. Information which is needed by those who
hire me. Information which they can use to help them with their
chosen activities. I am paid matter pellets in direct proportion to
the time I spend in creating the information. If a third party
approaches me and requests a copy of the same information I have
already been paid to create, why should I demand money of this third
party as well? Is this anything less than greed? The dream of getting
something for nothing?
Unfortunately, you fail to see the obvious consequences of your freely giving
the information you have created to the third party. Eventually, your
employers will discover that they are paying you a princely sum in "matter
pellets" to develop information that their competitors are able to obtain for
free. Obviously, your employer's cost of doing business will be higher than
their competitor's costs. Eventually your employers will be unable to compete
in the marketplace and, perhaps, go out of business --- leaving you
unemployed.
Alternatively, your employers might take the attitude, "Why should we pay Mr.
Outerbridge to develop this information which he then gives away freely to our
competitors? Let us put Mr. Outerbridge in the unemployment line, and perhaps
one of our competitors will be foolish enough to hire him. Then we can obtain
this information from Mr. Outerbridge for free, as our competitors are
currently doing." Either way, you end up unemployed.
Now, perhaps you object that this is too self-centered a viewpoint: that it
does not take into account the "larger picture, the good of society", etc.
Why should your profession (the production of "information pellets") be
subjected to special rules which do not apply to those involved in the
production of "matter and energy pellets", simply because information pellets
are more easily duplicated (not *created*, just duplicated). Do you think the
guys/gals working on the assembly line building those hard-to-duplicate Fords
and Chevys are doing it for the good of society? No, they are trying to feed,
clothe, and house their families, send their kids to college, and maybe take a
vacation to the beach once a year. Why should you (or I) be expected to do
any differently, just because we happen to be skilled at producing a different
kind of pellet?
Jeff Clark Honeywell Systems and Research Center Minneapolis, MN
inet: jclark@src.honeywell.com tel: 612-782-7347
uucp: jclark@srcsip.UUCP fax: 612-782-7438
DISCLAIMER: If you think I speak for my employer, you need serious help ...chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US (Chip Rosenthal) (08/19/89)
gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >Copyright laws are designed to prevent the theft of ideas, but what sort of >theft is it which leaves the victim undiminished? Very entertaining story. But this assertation is wrong, and it is the basis of your allegory. Might I suggest that you review the paper entitled "Copyright Law" by Jordan Breslow? It is part of the documentation distributed with the USENET software. It might clear up your misconceptions about what a copyright is. -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 "I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom
lindsay@watnext.waterloo.edu (Lindsay Patten) (08/19/89)
In article <8908181535.AA08568@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >If I have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10 information >pellets, and you have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, (and a >gun), you can take all of my matter pellets away and I will have none. >You will then have 10 more matter pellets and I will have 10 less. You >can do the same with my energy pellets. Your gain is my loss. You >can't deprive me of my information pellets though (not without mashing >up my brain). What you can do is persuade me to let you make a copy of >them for yourself. In order to do this you will have to spend one of >your energy pellets on copying costs. If you didn't take my other >pellets, I will have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10 >information pellets. You will have 9 energy pellets, 10 matter >pellets, and 10 information pellets. Initial state: A has 10 matter pellets and 0 information pellets B has 10 matter pellets and 0 information pellets C has no pellets A gives 5 matter pellets to C who uses them to create 1 information pellet C gives a copy of that information pellet to A A uses their remaining 5 matter pellets and 5 copies of the information pellet to produce 5 copies of their product. To break even they must get 2 matter pellets back per product B gets a free copy of the information pellet from C B creates an equivalent product to A's but only requires 1 pellet per product to break even A goes out of business Doesn't seem like this would lead to a stable situation does it? The plain fact of the matter is that as long as matter and energy pellets are required to *create* information pellets some means must be provided for that investment to be recouped. Now it seems that there must be something to be learned from the (seeming) success of the X consortium. They somehow manage to produce free software. By what process did that take place? Can it be used more generally? Cheers, Lindsay -- Lindsay Patten "People are package deals - No substitutions allowed" Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence Group lindsay@watnext Department of Systems Design Engineering lindsay@watnext.waterloo.edu University of Waterloo {utai|decvax|uunet}!watmath!watnext!lindsay
lindsay@watnext.waterloo.edu (Lindsay Patten) (08/19/89)
In article <8908181535.AA08568@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >Copyright laws are designed to prevent the theft of ideas, but what sort of >theft is it which leaves the victim undiminished? Consider the case of the novelist, if all copies past the first could be had for free, or the cost of printing them out if necessary, how could the novelist support him/herself? Besides, having the best, most advanced software is a big advantage when trying to sell a computer. As soon as everyone else has that software the computer seller no longer has an advantage, they have definately been diminished. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of free software, I just think that we have to admit that people paid cold hard cash to create it, that they put themselves at an economic disadvantage by doing so. >The solution is clear, and the nice thing about it is that everyone >will probably hate it. The solution is pointedly unclear to me! >If we accept the fact that matter pellets and >energy pellets are inherently capitalistic, and information pellets >are inherently communistic, it should not prove all that difficult to >come up with a new economic philosophy which is in harmony with the >laws of the universe If it is so easy please do so and let us all know the results! Cheers, Lindsay -- Lindsay Patten "People are package deals - No substitutions allowed" Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence Group lindsay@watnext Department of Systems Design Engineering lindsay@watnext.waterloo.edu University of Waterloo {utai|decvax|uunet}!watmath!watnext!lindsay
jym@APPLE.COM (08/19/89)
> Now it seems that there must be something to be learned from the (seeming) > success of the X consortium. Oh, and let's not forget that obscure group . . . who are they again? . . . oh yeah, the Free Foundation for Software or something like that. I think they've made a free software product or two, but don't quote me on that. (-: :-) <_Jym_>
baud@eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) (08/19/89)
In article <8908181603.AA02525@ipl.rpi.edu> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >... I'm going to print it out and force >people to read it whenever they ask me about Gnu. > What does this have to do with Gnu or the FSF? The FSF has a goal of distributing free software. But free here doesn't mean ``free from cost,'' since you must pay distribution costs. But it doesn't even mean ``free from cost over distribution costs''! The free in FSF means ``free to do with as you see fit, as long as you don't sell copies or derivative works without propogating this freedom to your customers.'' In other words, you can sell copylefted software, if anyone will buy it, at any price you please! Wait a minute! Does this jive with the GNU Software License and the ideas of RMS? Incredibly, yes. The wording of the copyleft and statements by RMS himself (he will correct me if I am paraphrasing him out of context or have misunderstood his statements to me) allow me to do this. The trick is that if I sell copylefted software, my customer gets all the rights (and responsibilities) of using that copylefted software, including the source code and the right to resell the software if he can and the restriction that he can only sell that same software (or derived works) under the restrictions of the copyleft. Simple (capitalistic) economics goes to work after my first sale. If my customer chooses, he can distribute the code for free to anyone he wants to. Or, he can keep it to himself and force others who want the software to pay me for it. Or, he can sell the software himself, although he must abide by the copyleft when doing so, for any price he can get, higher or lower than what I charged him. In any event, whether in a market economy or one populated by do-gooders who distribute my software for free, the cost of the software gradually will diminish to distribution costs of its own volition. Along the way, each person who has the software is free to do with it as he wishes, as long as he abides by the copyleft. It may be expedient for my customers to keep me in business, since I may offer to sell them upgrades in the future at some reasonable price. I am free to do this. Or, I can arrange to provide support for the product for some price. Anything is possible, because the software is FREE OF ALL ENCUMBERANCES EXCEPT (technical ones and) THE COPYLEFT ITSELF, WHICH KEEPS THE SOFTWARE FREE. Thus, although the FSF promotes free software, be careful what you mean by free. And again I ask, what does the communistic view of information have to do with freedom? I claim that a communistic view restricts freedom more than a capitalistic view in any arena: political, economic, or informational. kurt -- Kurt Baudendistel --- GRA Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332 internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud
RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Richard Outerbridge) (08/19/89)
This is a general comment directed at some of those who themselves commented on my "copywrongs" posting. My assertion is that the system, as it presently exists, is not in harmony with physical laws. My conclusion is that the system might benefit from some changes. Those who argue that, under the present system, the consequences of allowing the free copying of information are undesirable are only strengthening my case. It is not my intention to suggest that simply repealing copyright laws will be of any use. As a thought experiment I would suggest the following: If there were no copyright (and patent) laws. If for some reason we, as a society, were firm in our decision not to enact such laws. If we wanted to prevent the kinds of problems that such laws were created to prevent. What could we do instead? I would raise one more point, in parting. If you would all allow me the assumption that the vast majority of copyright infringements go unpunished (without going into the issue of deterrents), then don't the copyright laws as they now operate confer a very unfair (although perhaps minor) advantage to those who violate them? I apologize if my original posting was on the rough side. I was not entirely satisfied with my eloquence or irrefutibility, but I wanted to try and get something out. Hopefully, one of three things will happen: Someone else will take the basic idea and soup it up, or the feedback I get will help me identify my weak points so that I can improve it myself, or best of all Playboy magazine will offer to publish (and, of course, copyright) the original posting and make me a wealthy and famous author and secret supporter of all I profess to despise. Stay tuned.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/19/89)
From article <8908190134.AA11681@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Richard Outerbridge): > ... My assertion is that the system, as it presently exists, is not in harmony >with physical laws. ... Now what laws were those again? -- Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) (08/19/89)
I think we are already heading towards the direction of 'free' information.
When you buy an automobile, you are not just paying for the profit and
the cost to make a copy, but you are also, among other things, paying
for research and development costs. Even information products have
research and development costs. I think the important idea here is not
to copy information products for free, but rather to spread the costs of
research and development among the many users in an equal and non-profiteering
manner.
Already we are seeing things like this, especially with the Japanese, but
also here with the Open Software Foundation and similar organizations.
When development costs have been paid for there is no reason NOT to copy
the information for free. I believe it could get quite difficult to
produce new information products for 0 real development costs.
It would be interesting to see an organization started up that would
manage a variety of software projects for interested parties. Some
means would have to be developed to distribute, to a certain point,
development costs of the software, but I think breakeven, not profit,
is the goal here. Information products are an easily shareable resource
where it makes sense to elminate duplication of effort.
--
Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet
Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu
Frankfort, KY 40601 Educate, Don't Legislate! oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (08/20/89)
In article <8908181535.AA08568@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >philosophy (let's call it Bimorphism - or name it after me if you want ^^^^^^^^^^^ Already taken. See "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. To comment on the whole article: Your breakfast is getting cold. oz -- The king: If there's no meaning Usenet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca in it, that saves a world of trouble ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz you know, as we needn't try to find any. Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] Lewis Carroll (Alice in Worderland) Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
jym@APPLE.COM (08/22/89)
If you're intending this for wider publication, I'd suggest dropping the capitalistic/communistic adjectives. For one thing, the terms are too vague to represent the meanings you seem to attach to them. For another, the distinctions made are a bit oversimplified. The fact is, while profit-driven competition is a dynamic system that can yield innovation, it's not the only system to do so. The thesis that matter and energy pellet production is inherently capitalistic ignores other successful paradigms. For more information, check out how Japan and (especially) Sweden operate. ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::::::::: jym@nli.com :::::::::::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Natural Languages, Inc. :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----':::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: ::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) (08/22/89)
In article <12440@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) writes: >I think we are already heading towards the direction of 'free' information. [deleted] >research and development among the many users in an equal and non-profiteering >manner. > >Already we are seeing things like this, especially with the Japanese, but >also here with the Open Software Foundation and similar organizations. >When development costs have been paid for there is no reason NOT to copy ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the information for free. I believe it could get quite difficult to >produce new information products for 0 real development costs. > [deleted] >-- >Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek >Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet >Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu >Frankfort, KY 40601 Educate, Don't Legislate! Except for the usual one: obscene profits! What incentive is there to stop? Of course, in a market economy, we hope that someone just a little less greedy will step in and produce a similar product at a lower cost. Intellectual property laws (copyright, patents and trade secrets) were formulated to protect the originators of ideas and information. The motives are varied, but legislators are usually putting some perceived measure of societal gain into the law. (Personal gain, alas, sometimes, too.) These laws are sometimes used to legitimize a stranglehold on technology and squelch ``similar'' inventions, which is part of the ``price'' society pays for the laws. Judging the balance of incentive for invention, against disclosure and free dissemination, is quite tricky. Note that copyright and patents both have a healthy dose of dissemination in them. Trade secrets and licensing are much more restrictive. I'd like to point out also, that even traditional economics is not a zero sum game. There are producers and consumers. Those farmers don't just happen to have all that grain to begin with, they GROW it. This contradicts the notion of capitialists competing for a fixed supply of matter and energy pellets. Some combination of raw materials, time, energy and information go into a product. There are many products which, like software, have small ``marginal costs''. The classic example is pharmaceuticals. Most of the expense is in the research, not the production. Profits usually go to more research, but bottom line-oriented stockholders and managers, can easily sway this. It's iteresting that FSF is using the tool of copyright, which restricts the free flow of information, to create the copyleft, which enforces access to information. If the original poster of ``Copywrong'' and his followers undermine the Copyright, aren't they also undermining the Copyleft? Bernard A. Badger Jr. 407/984-6385 |``Use the Source, Luke!'' Secure Computer Products |``Get a LIFE!'' -- J.H. Conway Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 |Buddy, can you paradigm? Internet: bbadger%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively.
boerner@ut-emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner) (08/22/89)
In article <2574@trantor.harris-atd.com> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >In article <12440@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) writes: [...deleted...] >>When development costs have been paid for there is no reason NOT to copy > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>the information for free. I believe it could get quite difficult to >>produce new information products for 0 real development costs. >> [...deleted...] >Except for the usual one: obscene profits! What incentive is there to Would you care to define your criteria of obscene? I suppose you work and your employer pays you a salary for that work which you then use for food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc... You also probably try to put a bit of each paycheck in the bank as savings also, right? Well, this is profit. Is your profit obscene? If not, why not? >stop? Of course, in a market economy, we hope that someone just a little >less greedy will step in and produce a similar product at a lower cost. It's called competition. Why, you might ask, if there are so many companies producing hardware/software, are prices so high, with all of this competition? Because producers of these products charge what the market will bear. It so happens that what the market will bear you find to be to high. But others don't and this is why the producers don't feel any incentive to lower what they charge. This does not mean that the folks who pay for a particular application for instance don't grumble that it is an awful lot of money. What it means is that they think it's an awful lot of money but they'll still pay it because the benefits continue to outweigh the costs. >There are many products which, like software, have small ``marginal costs''. >The classic example is pharmaceuticals. Most of the expense is in the >research, not the production. Profits usually go to more research, but >bottom line-oriented stockholders and managers, can easily sway this. I don't quite agree. Sure, on the surface, it seems that the bulk of the cost of producing software is in the developement phase and the costs of packaging and distribution are small compared to this. But consider that after the product is out the door the manufacturer can't take the money and run. If it did, then there would be no support, updates, etc... >Bernard A. Badger Jr. 407/984-6385 |``Use the Source, Luke!'' >Secure Computer Products |``Get a LIFE!'' -- J.H. Conway >Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 |Buddy, can you paradigm? >Internet: bbadger%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively. Brendan -- Brendan B. Boerner Phone: 512/471-3241 Microcomputer Services The University of Texas @ Austin Internet: boerner@emx.utexas.edu UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!boerner BITNET: CCGB001@UTXVM.BITNET AppleLink: boerner@emx.utexas.edu@DASNET#
jym@APPLE.COM (08/23/89)
> Intellectual property laws (copyright, patents and trade secrets) were > formulated to protect the originators of ideas and information. >From the GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 4: [RMS quotes the Supreme Court decision in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal] "The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. `The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly,' this Court has said, `lie in the general benefits derived by teh public from the labors of authors.'" <_Jym_>
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (08/24/89)
In article <2574@trantor.harris-atd.com> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >In article <12440@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) writes: >>I think we are already heading towards the direction of 'free' information. >[deleted] >>research and development among the many users in an equal and non-profiteering >>manner. >> >>Already we are seeing things like this, especially with the Japanese, but >>also here with the Open Software Foundation and similar organizations. >>When development costs have been paid for there is no reason NOT to copy > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>the information for free. I believe it could get quite difficult to >>produce new information products for 0 real development costs. >> >[deleted] >>-- >>Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek >>Office of Institutional Research bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet >>Kentucky State University internet: tek@ms.uky.edu >>Frankfort, KY 40601 Educate, Don't Legislate! > >Except for the usual one: obscene profits! What incentive is there to >stop? Of course, in a market economy, we hope that someone just a little >less greedy will step in and produce a similar product at a lower cost. > >Bernard A. Badger Jr. 407/984-6385 |``Use the Source, Luke!'' >Secure Computer Products |``Get a LIFE!'' -- J.H. Conway >Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 |Buddy, can you paradigm? >Internet: bbadger%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively. People don't introduce lower cost products because they are morally superiour to their competition (your "less greedy"), they do it because they think they can take away sales from their competition and make a profit themselves. And tell me, what is an "obscene profit"? What you think is an obscene profit might be a tidy profit for my effort. So should the State decide? -- michael peirce, for profit software developer
bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) (08/25/89)
In article <10512@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes: >In article <2574@trantor.harris-atd.com> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >>Except for the usual one: obscene profits! What incentive is there to >>stop? Of course, in a market economy, we hope that someone just a little >>less greedy will step in and produce a similar product at a lower cost. >> > >People don't introduce lower cost products because they are morally superiour >to their competition (your "less greedy"), they do it because they think they >can take away sales from their competition and make a profit themselves. > >And tell me, what is an "obscene profit"? What you think is an obscene profit >might be a tidy profit for my effort. So should the State decide? > >-- michael peirce, for profit software developer Yes, well, I just meant that some will not charge as much as others. I used the phrase ``a little less greedy'' in a sloppy manner to be provocative. What I meant to provoke was some thought on how you determine what ``fair'' profits are. In fact, you are right, in that those who produce ``knock-off'' products at cheap prices to undercut the original product certainly cannot claim by this fact alone to be ``less greedy'' or morally superior. I'm sorry for this imprecision. So! Do we have any interesting ideas on pricing? What's fair? _Can_ capitalism be fair? Can Steven Jobs, Bill Gates, Malcolm Forbes or Cher possibly be _worth_ their [mb]illions? (Just examles, not picking on anyone in particular.) Why not? I think that software prices are inflated to beyond what the market will bear. I think FSF will have a healthy influence, by forcing the market to respond with cheaper and better software. Bernard A. Badger Jr. 407/984-6385 |``Use the Source, Luke!'' Secure Computer Products |``Get a LIFE!'' -- J.H. Conway Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL 32902 |Buddy, can you paradigm? Internet: bbadger%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively.
jym@APPLE.COM (08/26/89)
> And tell me, what is an "obscene profit"?
One that bites the "invisible hand" that feeds it.
<_Jym_>koreth@panarthea.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (08/26/89)
In article <2602@trantor.harris-atd.com> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >I think that software prices are inflated to beyond what the market will >bear. Uh, software is sold, isn't it? Perhaps your definition of what the market will bear is different than mine, but it seems to me that if someone can make money at something, the market can bear whatever he's selling. --- This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimm
merlin@smu.uucp (David Hayes) (08/29/89)
In article <34181@grapevine.uucp> koreth (Steven Grimm) writes: >Uh, software is sold, isn't it? Perhaps your definition of what the market >will bear is different than mine, but it seems to me that if someone can make >money at something, the market can bear whatever he's selling. Well, *some* software is sold. The last estimate I heard, from ADAPSO, I believe, is that the small-computer world has 9 copies made from every legally sold copy. By those stats, it seems the market will bear about 10% of what software companies are currently charging. David Hayes School of Engineering Southern Methodist University merlin@smu.edu uunet!smu!merlin "Argue for your limitation, and, sure enough, they're yours." - Richard Bach
koreth%panarthea.ebay@sun.com (Steven Grimm) (08/29/89)
In article <15885@pollux.UUCP> merlin@smu.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: > Well, *some* software is sold. The last estimate I heard, from >ADAPSO, I believe, is that the small-computer world has 9 copies made >from every legally sold copy. By those stats, it seems the market will >bear about 10% of what software companies are currently charging. Oh boy. I'm too easy to draw into a discussion like this. Years ago, I was a pretty heavy software pirate. I had literally thousands of copyrighted programs, most of which I never used except for trading purposes. OK, you think. So I was costing the software industry megabucks. Wrong. Out of the programs I had, I would have bought maybe twenty (most of my programs were games, and most of those were really lousy...) The rest, I would never have even glanced at in a store or mail-order catalog. If I wouldn't have bought a program, I can't see how I'm costing anyone anything by copying it illegally. (I know, if I hadn't been pirating, I would have had more motivation to buy software. But I certainly wouldn't have bought more than a tiny percentage of what I pirated, in any case.) In my experience, software piracy works like this: Model 1 (small-time) Person A shows the nifty game he just bought to person B. Person B thinks it's neat, and takes a copy of it. Model 2 (most of the pirates I dealt with worked this way) Person A gives a list of his software to person B, and vice versa. The two cross out what they already have, and get the remainder. If the difference is too great, the one with more software probably won't trade all his "wares," in pirate parlance. Person B adds the new software to his list, and probably never uses any of it more than once, to see if his copy is good. Model 3 Person A calls up person B's BBS, sees a neat program that hasn't been released yet (this is VERY common -- I often had programs two or three months before they hit the stores) and downloads it, and maybe a few other things. Optionally, he uploads something he doesn't see on B's list. Model 3 is an interesting one, as it is a tangible advantage of piracy over legitimate software acquisition. In models 2 and 3, which I'd say account for 95% of piracy (it only takes a few big collectors to equal lots of model-1s), the software is used primarily to trade for more software, and not for its own merits. The idea is that if you have 50 programs that Joe doesn't, but he has something you really want, you can trade -- even if your 50 are just worthless little one-week-hack games. Then, once you have Joe's program, you can give it to someone else for 50 you don't have, and so on. In very little time, you've amassed a closetful of disks. Often, "Joe" is the program's author. He KNOWS you don't have a copy of his new program, since he hasn't given it to anyone else. That's one way the prereleases get out. Without piracy, the participants in models 2 and 3 don't have any incentive to get all the programs they would otherwise have, so the industry makes very little money from them. To these people, the software itself is a sort of money: worthless except that it can be traded for other things (such as more money...) So lowering prices won't help against these people, either. They are almost no more likely to buy a program for $10 than for $2000. Note that I'm not condoning piracy here; I'm just relating my experiences. (Though I must say that the few programs I *did* buy during that time, I always pirated first to see if they were any good.) Copy protection only stops the model 1 people. If it's really good, it might hold 2 and 3 up for a week or two, but that's about it. I have seen more "unbreakable" copy protection schemes come and go than I care to count. However, since the model 1 people are the ones who would mostly buy the programs anyway, I suppose it does do its job. Elaborate schemes are just a waste of time, because they never take even a tenth as long to break as to create, and all that's needed to stop the model 1 people is a bad sector on the disk or somesuch. What I'd like to see is a survey of the model 1 people, something like "How many pieces of software did you copy illegally to avoid paying for them?" Comments? --- This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimm
koreth%panarthea.ebay@sun.com (Steven Grimm) (08/29/89)
Before I get flamed, I should mention that I no longer pirate software.
(There's more than enough neat public-domain software to keep me going...)
---
This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours.
Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimmchase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (David Chase) (08/29/89)
In article <15885@pollux.UUCP> merlin@smu.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: > Well, *some* software is sold. The last estimate I heard, from >ADAPSO, I believe, is that the small-computer world has 9 copies made >from every legally sold copy. By those stats, it seems the market will >bear about 10% of what software companies are currently charging. Not that this is relevant to the goodness, badness, or anything-else-ness of the GNU Copyleft, but your interpretation of the statistics is woefully out-to-lunch. All we know is that of the users of software, 10% believe that the price is worth paying (and that the law should not be broken) and 90% believe that given a choice of breaking the law and paying the price, they'll pay the price. You seem to assume that legal-use-rate times price is equal to some constant, and this is definitely not the case. For example, if the price is lowered by 90%, will there still be *some* piracy, somewhere? Almost certainly. Furthermore, if this relationship actually does hold, it seems that it is in the interests of the vendor to raise their price until they ship only one copy -- the same amount of money flows in, and maintenance and upgrades (such as they are) will be vastly simplified, along with distribution. The impression that I get from reading things in the industry rags and looking at the pricing of software is that vendors are convinced that a pirate is a pirate, at any price, and that reducing price will affect only profits, not piracy. In practice, I think that vendors (of PC software) are failing to ask themselves the question "how much 'better' is this than the existing similar products" (where "better" is defined by users) and pricing accordingly. (Does this mean that I'm a pirate? No. A good friend writes software for a living, such as it is, and piracy clearly hurts him. I've worked as a DJ, and am a fan of obscure bands appearing on small labels, and piracy clearly hurts them because many of them just barely get by. If I want something but it costs more than I want to pay, I do without.) In fact, I haven't yet figured out the difference between "free software" and "free music"; can someone enlighten me? David
rich@sli.com (Rich K. Braun) (09/08/89)
In article <...> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >I think that software prices are inflated to beyond what the market will >bear. I think FSF will have a healthy influence, by forcing the >market to respond with cheaper and better software. > Welcome to Economics 101. The statement that prices are inflated "beyond" what the market will bear is obviously false if you think about it even for a second. Prices are currently, and always will be, set at precisely what the market will bear. To make more money, a company has two choices: go for greater volume at a given profit margin, by lowering the margin somewhat; or go for a greater profit margin, which will lower volume somewhat. Juggling those two factors are part of the job of marketing. A third variable comes in, of course: increase volume by improving product quality. That's where you and I come in, as engineers. The Free Software Foundation doesn't exist to make money, but it does exist for a clear goal: to set standards, and to improve the environment for software development. Or, in another sense, to establish a reputation and clout for its members. If it achieves its goals, those who played an integral part in establishing them will have no trouble finding work at the zillions of companies and research/educational institutions using FSF's software technology. That's a pretty powerful incentive to contri- bute, even if you don't get paid for it. -rich
phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott R. Anderson) (09/24/89)
In article <1989Sep7.192142.11623@sli.com> rich@sli.UUCP (Rich K. Braun) writes: >In article <...> bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810) writes: >>I think that software prices are inflated to beyond what the market will >>bear. I think FSF will have a healthy influence, by forcing the >>market to respond with cheaper and better software. > >Welcome to Economics 101. The statement that prices are inflated "beyond" >what the market will bear is obviously false if you think about it even >for a second. Prices are currently, and always will be, set at precisely >what the market will bear. Unfortunately, there are really two (or more) "submarkets" here: businesses and individuals. The former typically have much more money to spend than the latter, so that tends to be where software companies focus their attention. So, while the second statement above is true for the market as a whole, it is not true for the individual pocketbook from which the first statement emanates. A good example is what happened with Macintosh software. As the Macintosh became more popular amongst businesses, the price of software increased dramatically, even though the actual number of macs was also increasing (it all started with PageMaker, I believe). * * ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra * * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *