Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Mon Sep 19 2005 12:17 pm

In article <84dXe.15682$R5.1030@news.indigo.ie>, 
david.golden@oceanfree.net says...
> 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. 

Sure, but that is why it fits that category.

> 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.

J.K.Rowling is presumably a dick for wanting royalties, so.  In your 
world, I'd call her a dick for writing the books in the first place.  
(Not that I think she would have.) 

> 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.

Your contempt for attribution rights also is evident elsewhere.

> 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 usual moronic argument for communism.  Soak the rich and distribute 
their goods and you maximise utility, as far as it goes, with goods 
ALREADY EXISTING that can be expropriated.  Except you forgot that you 
just switched off the engines of wealth.

> > 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.

I have never said that.  I have said it's a good way, and that you have 
provided no plausible alternative that will provide anything like the 
same results.

> 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.

You forget that Rowling would have to serve fries for a living if sjhe 
couldn't get royalties.

> > 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. 

Anybody who earns a living from creative work who would otherwise have 
to do something else surely finds the advantages outweigh the 
disadvantages.  Your economic arguments about 'net users' are garbage 
too because you are not looking at market value.

> 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?  

Because those who create ars gratia artis are usually the shit artists, 
who have no alternative.  (Programming is exceptional in that it 
attracts a lot who enjoy the process of cloning ancient commercial 
software etc.  Insofar as the actual programming - as distinct from 
documentation, artwork, ease of use etc. - is concerned, open source 
software is probably better than the equivalent in most categories.)

> 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.

I think the art of the modern day is pretty high-quality myself.  All 
your scheme would encourage is parasitic adaptations of better works.  
The only literature you have mentioned was written to earn royalties.

- Gerry Quinn

.