Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : David Golden
Date : Sat Aug 27 2005 07:52 pm

Scott Moore wrote:

> You wrote that book, I 
> should be able to copy that (although the book analogy seems to be
> strangely beyond the coverage of your theory). 

I've already stated elsewhere in the thread I don't support restrictions
on the copying of books, either (I do support right to be identified as
the author of a book, i.e. I disagree with plagiarism).

> It could be in my head.
> 

And while the only copy is in your head, I've no difficulty with saying
that copy is "yours"... Doesn't mean you should "own" all other copies
when it's elsewhere in addition.

I've even said you should be free to enter into nondisclosure agreements
- i.e. I haven't argued against trade secrets.

> Its simplistic to say that the copyright law exists to coax me to get
> that idea out to the public, so anyone can benefit, but that is indeed
> part of what the law says.
>

Copyright holders have altered the system to make it rather one-sided.
Copyright (at least in the once-great USA) was once 14 years, and you
had to register for it otherwise information was assumed free. The
"deal" was the public abstaining from its natural right to copy
information in return for its disclosure... FOR A LIMITED TIME - not
some notion of it being right to own an information pattern!

Now, the copyright holder has an automatic monopoly on distribution of 
information for a term greater even than any human lifespan - and
there's not even a use-it-or-lose-it clause so that if the copyright
holder neglects his duty to provide the copyrighted information someone
else can! (I wouldn't maintain an information copy holder has any such
duty to provide copies of the information if he doesn't have a
copyright monopoly on the redistribution of the information) - so right
now, copyright can be, and is, used to just plain suppress information
availability (see software companies buying up competitors and just
dropping all support and availability for software).

Of course, Copyright is a like a property right (a.k.a. monopoly) on the
distribution of an information pattern. It is not really ownership of
the information pattern itself: you have only been deprived of your
copyright monopoly by copyright infringement, not of the information,
information is therefore perhaps even now not truly "owned" as seems to
be your black little heart's desire. (yes, you might then argue why am
I objecting, but I'm really arguing against two different things: I
disagree absolutely with ownership of an information pattern, and I
disagree strongly with copyright, especially current rather
overextended copyright, which amounts to effective information pattern
ownership.)

Once again, merely being like a property right does not mean it merits
preservation if its results are detrimental. Yeah, you might scream
bloody murder about losing your slaves or your copyright, of course.
(do try to separate "slaves" from its emotional content to you there, 
if you would, I am NOT saying copyright is "as bad as" slavery - just a
dry point about the reaction of any pseudo- or real- property right
holders to the dissolution of a pseudo- or real- property right)

> So it really comes down to a story I read when I was five (from a
> story written in the days before copyright). Which I will leave you
> with:
> 
Which is not hugely relevant (unless you meant in the sense that people
can lose things through stupidity combined with greed, which is
obviously trivially true, and then you think I'm "losing" something I
desire particularly).  

If a dog could look at another dog with another bone, and have a copy of
that bone, just by looking at it, without depriving the other dog of
the bone, like with information...  most people I know (admittedly I'm
in Europe) agree the dog who doesn't want dogs to have copies of bones
is just a dick.

Hey, there's another story about dogs in mangers, and if the farm
animals could just leave the dog barking on the manger and go clone up
another manger, it would be very different...  But really, it's
inappropriate: bones and mangers of straw are both rivalrous.
Information isn't rivalrous.

.