Re: More ethics... (long, of course)

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

Kevin wrote...

> Once again. For documents that describe 
> the use and abuse of a *product*, copyright is 
> IRRELEVANT. The fact that some law says our 
> customers must not give away copies of my fabulous 
> user manuals is irrelevant, because unless the 
> people they GIVE them to also have our encryption 
> token devices, our encryption accelerator systems, 
> etc., the documents are just paper with ink on 'em.


Kevin - that doesn't matter. Copyright laws do not attempt to analyze or
judge the usefulness of material. If that was true - then, 75% of the
books out there would be uncopyrightable. 


> Another model is the ASP (Application Service Provider) 
> model, where you KEEP the software to yourself and 
> give the customer only a thin-client app that lets 
> them connect remotely and use the software while 
> that software and the customer's data resides on 
> your server-farm. 

Yeah, ASP is a really money maker. How many ASP-based companies went out
of business this week? 


> I'm sure there are others I haven't noticed, but 
> these are two that are already making inroads, and 
> that do not rely on copyright.  What's so hard to 
> grasp?

For you - profit.  Apparently you seem to think companies can make a
profit from giving away their valuable goods and services. If the dot.com
bust has taught us anything it is  - YOU MUST MAKE A PROFIT. 
 

> SURE things would work differently in the absence 
> of those laws. SURE, that would be a bad thing for 
> some people. But just as surely, it would be just 
> fine for plenty of other people. The same thing 
> happens every time there's a paradigm shift across 
> an industry or society.

Yes, but your "paradigm shift" will remove the mechanisms companies and
individuals use to protect their intellectual works. This would devalue
ALL intellectual works. It would remove the profit incentive from pursuing
and developing said intellectual works.

In the history of humanity, attempts to remove, obfuscate, or "sanitize"
fair competition and profit motive have all resoundingly failed. You
cannot remove the profit motive and have a growing, vibrant economy.

You want proof, go visit Moscow. 70 years of trying to squash the profit
motive have given the people of Russia (and may other countries)
unrelenting poverty, corruption, and war. 


> When everybody's a criminal, it finally becomes 
> obvious to enough people that there's something 
> wrong with the law (see USA, 1923 to 1933 and 
> General Prohibition, for an earlier example).

This is the "if everybody cheats on their taxes, then cheating on your
taxes is acceptable" theory. Sorry, doesn't work that way. 

First, you need to prove that EVERYBODY is cheating. Which is impossible.
Second, you need to prove that because everybody is cheating, it is
actually a good thing. Which is also impossible.

You have done neither with your argument, Kevin. 

A) you cannot prove that removing all copyright laws would be beneficial.
You've made some highly generalized claims that a "new paradigm" would
emerge and offered up failing ASPs as an example of this new order. 

B) You cannot prove that everybody, even a majority, steals and misuses
copyrighted material.  We can ponder about it, but is it a majority or
not?  Either way, its irrelevant. 50.7% of voters chose Al Gore over 49.3%
who chose Bush. But Bush is our president? Why? Most of us live in
republics, not pure democracies. We live in societies where we elect those
people and laws to represent us. Until those laws change, you're stuck
with it.  Just because the majority speaks, doesn't mean the majority
always wins.  In this case, we cannot even determine if the majority has
spoken.

> Besides, if you'd care to turn down the thickness, 
> you'd be able to see that by taking my car, you 
> are physically breaking into my physical property 
> and then physically depriving me of the use of that 
> property.

So I can steal your car and use it at will, so long as I bring it back and
have it there when you need it?

Stealing is not okay - ever. Doesn't matter if you can still use it. Its
wrong to take something that isn't yours without the owner's consent.
Period. 


> By contrast, if one of a million copies of your coded 
> message is lying around (or perhaps I bought a copy 
> from you...) and I decipher the code, then I have some 
> information that I didn't have before... but YOU still 
> have the information you had before, and you still have 
> the use of it. I have not deprived you of the use of 
> that information.  By deciphering it, I don't suck it 
> out of your head (or your hard disk).

That doesn't matter, Kevin. I worked hard to code that stuff and I
expected to get compensated for that hard work. Why would I give you
ANYTHING or even let you pay for it, if you were going to run out and
redistribute it to everybody else, thus depriving me the ability to make
money from my work. 


> >Kevin, your argument is totally absurd. Just because 
> >something is put on
> >the Internet does not mean you can break it and steal it. 
> 
> Well, Andrew, just because I unravel a code at my 
> location does not mean that I have "broken" it 
> in the usual sense of "break"... which is to 
> render unusable, or incable of performing its 
> operation.  

If you take intellectual property that is not yours and use it without the
author/owner's consent, you are a criminal. It does not matter how useful,
interesting, or profitable that property is. An owner has a right to
defend his property, be it physical or intellectual. 


> I think writers (and singers and other artists) 
> should start getting used to the notion that copyright 
> may no longer offer much utility. I predict a move 
> toward craftsmanship, personal value-added service, 
> live performance. Recordings will be attention-
> getting, loss-leader items, sold at cost or given 
> away, by people who charge admission to live 
> performances/presentations, or who sell personalized 
> and "one-off", signed items of their work.

I think artists are getting fed up with punk kids who think they can
steal, steal, steal, steal and then hide behind some "new paradigm shift"
mentality.  

Kevin, you will never change a system in such a manner where profit is
ruled out of the equation. Copyrights allow owners to protect their works.
And no matter how many justifications you come up with, you are not going
to prove to me or anybody else who works hard, that it is somehow okay to
steal property just because it so happens to have the attributes of not
depriving the owner of use. 

I can steal your identity to get credit cards - and you can still be you. 

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.