Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : David Golden Date : Sun Sep 18 2005 02:28 pm Gerry Quinn wrote: > The conclusion that there is no need to devise a property system does > not follow at all from the assertion that information is 'non- > rivalrous' in the specific sense that it can be copied with very low > expenditure of free energy. That's just NOT what non-rivalrous means! Non-rivalrous does not mean it can be copied with very low expenditure of free energy, but that my possession and use of a copy of some information does not prevent your posession and use of your copy. If I read Harry Potter, you can too, and my "enjoyment" (such as it is) of Harry Potter is not lessened. Of course, you're bound to bring up "exclusivity", maybe your enjoyment of Harry Potter IS lessened by the knowledge countless others can read it - but that would just be you being a dick: your desire for exclusivity of the information to give you advantage over others rather than just the information to improve your own lot is no reason for other people to agree to create exclusivity for you where none naturally exists. If I run linux, and you do too, it's no skin off my nose - if anything, the values of each copy of linux or windows is increased the more people run other copies, something Bill Gates has openly indicated understanding of. As I've already said, I simply don't consider information to exist independent of a physical substrate. Physical property rights over scarce and rivalrous substrates are sufficient, and attribution rights are extra encouragement. Besides, if your goal is to maximise wealth, and if information has value to people, then your and others wealth is increased by people including you having copies of maximal amount of information at minimised cost. A system restricting copying interferes with that, vastly increasing the cost of obtaining copies of information without increasing the value of a copy of the information itself. A conclusion might thus indeed be not merely that there is no need, but that it's actively wrong and counterproductive. > The potential market value of goods to potential creators has an > influence on the likelihood of their creation, and the copying of > information-based goods certainly affects their market value. Creators have no particular right to any market in individual copies of information in the first place. You are still stuck blindly assuming the only way a creator can make money is an extra per-copy charge, not just false, but already demonstrated false in recent and not so recent history. And the influence on likelihood of creation might well be negative, as we see already with current copyright law, where creators with overlong monopolies have little need to engage in further creation but rest on the laurels. > Insofar as such goods have any value to people at large, therefore, > the devisement of a property scheme in order to encourage creation is > a reasonable proposition, It's *a* proposition with advantages and disadvantages. It should not be considered in isolation from its profound negative effects, economical and more importantly with respect to liberty and empowerment, on information users and developers. The disadvantages typically far outweigh any positive effect on information "creators": all creators I know (and that includes every human being I know) are still net "users" (not "consumers" because information is not typically consumed) of information anyway. It is certainly not the only possible way to encourage creation. Not that creation needs encouragement particularly - why should we artificially help those unwilling to create ars gratia artis and/or charging for the service of creation compete with those who are? So we get "more" art? We have a surfeit of abominably low-quality "art" at present, that quality will not be increased by strengthening people's abilities to restrict refinement and development of previous art. Attribution is extra reward enough to encourage creation in many, even most, cases, allowing creators to build reputation and be paid for future services of creation. .