Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : lilburne
Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 02:54 pm



David Golden wrote:

> lilburne wrote:
> 
> 
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value
>>
> 
> First freaking sentence of that article:
> 
> "In Marxist political economy, any labor-product has a value and [AND!]
> a use value, and if it is traded as a commodity in markets, it
> additionally has an exchange value, most often expressed as a
> money-price."
> 
> Later:
> 
> "Even so, Marx carefully defines the production process both as a labour
> process creating use-values, and a valorisation process creating new
> value."


None of which detracts from the original observation.


> A use-value is just one kind of value in that theory (not a theory I
> even believe in, of course, but you were still pretty wrong even in a
> marxist context. Remember, I regard value as a subjective attitude,
> pretty much as per http://www.mises.org/story/1349 )
> 

Oh yes that is an article written by someone that writes books which are 
copyrighted and write articles in magazines that are themselves copyrighted.


    "The error contained in the idea of "trading value for value" is
     closely related to the notion that goods should sell for close
     to what they cost to produce. If I sell a computer program for
     far more than it cost me to make it, many people would call my
     price a "rip-off." After all, if exchanges properly take place
     when the "exchanged values" are "equal," then any profits
     earned by one party to the trade must be illicit."


So on what basis do we judge whether the price of his articles and books 
are a rip-off? Presumably we determine what his yearly income ought to 
be, have some authority give it to him and distribute his works for 
'free'. From each according to his ability?



>>Your denial of value outside of the material is Marxist through and
>>through.
> 
> 
> Well, nothing unphysical exists, I confidently predict you'll never show
> me something that doesn't have a physical basis.
> 
> The act of creation of a thing is NOT the thing being created. I don't
> deny either are potentially valuable, though.
> 

In which case the act of copying is theft no?

.