Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 11:01 am

In article <1A2Ye.15870$R5.1162@news.indigo.ie>, 
david.golden@oceanfree.net says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > Someone who wants to be paid, and isn't a dick, wants an economic and
> > legal system that encourages it.
> 
> There's quite a difference between that and demanding
> everyone else is restricted as the only acceptable encouragement.

I'm not sure what you imagine you mean by 'an economic and legal 
system', so.  Given that without restrictions, people have few 
incentives to pay an author.

> > I never said it did.  I said goods (such as IP rights) can be
> > expropriated
> 
> If I"P" rights aren't created in the first place, they can't be
> expropriated.  (clearly lack of creation of I"P" rights is quite
> different to information patterns not being created, as you yourself
> presumably understand given your statement above that you were talking
> about I"P" rights as distinct from information).

But they have been created, so your argument is counterfactual.  And 
you want to expropriate them.

> > Your argument is as nonsensical as saying money can't 
> > be expropriated because a data register in your bank's computer still
> > exists. 
> 
> Not that I necessarily agree much with centralised currency monooply 
> and what passes for "money" these days either... 

Why don't you just admit you're a communist and have done with it, 
instead of adding similar disclaimers to every property right?

> but do let's remember
> information does not exist independent of physical substrate:  a data
> register encoding one value is physically different to a data register
> encoding a different value in the same encoding scheme.   To overwrite
> the information content of a data register in a computer without
> authorisation you must thus grossly interfere with physical property,
> altering the computer's physical state without the owner's consent.

By copying a physical record you alter its quantum entanglement state - 
whether that qualifies as 'physical' in the normal sense is uncertain, 
but certainly it results in effects that can be measured in 
laboratories.  But it's beside the point, which is that the value of IP 
is not stored in a location but distributed.  Also, it is possible to 
alter someone's bank account by posting a password and waiting.  This 
does not involve any 'gross physical interference'.
   
> >> Well, that would really depend on how good her work was.
> > 
> > No, it would depend on how saleable her work was, which under your
> > scheme is likely to be close to zero irrespective of quality.
>  
> Work(1.) as in service of original creation, not necessarily "works"(2.)
> as in mere "copies" (though actually, people do tend to pay a bit extra
> for from-original-source copies.).  

A service that is unlikely to attract much payment.  Rowling did get a 
grant from some sort of Arts Council.  Likely that would mostly be the 
end of it, apart from some derisory sum from libraries, if she brown-
nosed the bureaucrats enough.  Yup, pretty much the only art around 
would be state supported.  Because whatever moronic disclaimers you 
come up with, communism is what you're pushing.  Maybe communism 
tomorrow instead of communism today, which is a good definition of 
anarchism.
 
> A labour theory of value IS a tad suggestive of Marx.  Me, I think the
> idea that something's value to others necessarily has much relation to
> the work put into it as pretty absurd, but hey.

I have never said anything to support a 'labour theory of value'.

- Gerry Quinn

.