Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Tue Sep 06 2005 12:33 pm

In article <0r6Te.12575$R5.896@news.indigo.ie>, 
david.golden@oceanfree.net says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Real commons were considered joint, common,
> >> property, not "not property" and the joint owners had agreed
> >> mechanisms for making decisions about them.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
> > 
> > Exactly. 
> 
> So, you can tell the difference between communal ownership and no
> ownership now, then? heh.

Where *actual* joint ownership exists, why wouldn't I?

> > When the sale value of 
> > information is at most that of its value to a single user (which is
> > what you want),
> 
> Rubbish.  If nothing else, do you think purchasers incapable of
> grouping together?  The internet has lowered the barriers for doing
> that significantly, and it's now commonplace for such funding drives to
> take place. Not all are "successful", of course, but that's the free
> market for you. 

Sure, the value of a book under your scheme would probably be more than 
the royalty on a single copy sold to the person who wants it most.  But 
not necessarily much more.  And don't forget that the same scum who 
attempt to destroy IP are very keen on defending their anonymity - it's 
clear that a freeloaders' charter is what is really in demand.

[Free speech]

> > What you cannot do is plagiarise my speech. 
> 
> Go look up plagiarism, dolt.   If you write something, and I claim
> to have authored it, that is plagiarism. It doesn't have much to do with
> copyright. You do not need copyright law, the power to restrict others
> from sharing infrormation with others, for plagiarism to be illegal and
> fraudulent.  Note that I did not argue against some sort of right to be
> identified as an author of a work.

You have essentially claimed that right.  After all, if you publish a 
copy of the latest Harry Potter under your own name, what have you 
taken from Ms. Rowling?  She still has the information, right?

Your last sentence indicates that even you admit some sort of IP 
ownership  rights, but so weak and diffuse as to be effectively 
useless.  
 
> With plagiarism still fraudulent, but without copyright, if people want
> another work of similar quality, then they know it's a better bet to
> pay you, not me for the work of creation. If you want to be paid
> indefinitely, just do new work.  That is quite sufficient "ownership"
> over information. 

Why is it a better bet in any significant way to pay the author?  It's 
only the price of one copy.  It will make no difference to her and the 
book will or will not come out anyway.  (Same for Cipro.)

> > Copyright law, i.e. IP, does not interfere in any way with free
> > speech, and in fact the two work perfectly hand in hand.
> 
> They quite clearly don't. Plenty of evidence to the contrary, e.g. the
> suppression of cryptographic research in the Sklyarov case, the
> suppression of criticism of Scientology.  

You disgust me with your reference to 'suppression of cryptographic 
research' in the case of someone who created what are no more than 
cracking tools for a product line that also included e-mail extractors, 
spamming tools, and system intrusion tools.  As for Scientology, 'fair 
use' provisions, along with the ability to freely express ideas and 
opinions, seem adequate.  As far as I can see, it incurs quite a 
considerable amount of criticism.

> "Freenet's aim is to allow two or more people who wish to share
> information, to do so."
> 
> That is freedom of speech. Maybe you meant it in some more limited
> sense.

I meant it in the sense of 'the right to freeely express opinions and 
ideas'.  The ordinary sense, in other words.  Which is completely 
compatible with copyright.  

The only time I've ever seen freenet referenced on usenet was some  
scumbag who posted other peoples' novels on freenet, and encouraged 
those who wished to pirate them to use university terminals because the 
service was so slow - i.e. the piracy was combined, in an unsurprising 
way, with theft of physical resources. 

- Gerry Quinn

.