Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 10:24 pm (It's been a long week and this has gotten off topic, so I'm going to do a lot of trimming and try to shorten things. So I'm just going to respond to the stuff that very new, okay?) Antoon Pardon writes: > See here is where the circularity started. You started from the > exploreree and considered the consequences of the work being > copied. If you already consider this copying as stealing, > you started from the idea you are supposed to argue for. Okay, I see why you'd say that. I felt I was showing why copying WAS stealing. > I ask you to give arguments why I should see this as stealing > and here you admit that stealing was your premisse. So for > arguing that copying is stealing, your argument is circular. Well, no, but perhaps the illustration wasn't framed well. Okay, we have the explorer who's made considerable investment in obtaining the knowledge required to create these maps. As mentioned originally, the cost included stress to the family and health of the explorer (let's call him Mr. E). Now, to recoup some of that investment, the explorer wants to sell maps. Nice maps. Limited edition. Someone comes along, let's call him Mr. T, buys one map, takes it to a printer who makes thousands of copies of that map. And Mr. T proceeds to sell those maps for a fraction of what the originals go for. Because of this, people who would normally buy Mr. E's maps now buy Mr. T's maps and Mr. E is unable to recoup the costs and suffers as a result. Meanwhile, Mr. T, who did no significant work makes out like a, um,... person who made out really well because he copied someone else's work. Did Mr. T act immorally? Did he, in some fashion, violate the moral rights of Mr. E? I say yes. I say Mr. E had fair ownership of his work--work produced at great cost. I say Mr. T took unfair advantage of the situation at the expense of Mr E. I say that Mr. T *took* something that *belonged* to Mr. E, just as if he'd broken into Mr. E's house and taken valuable property. I see those as nearly identical *because* of Mr. T's *behavior*. What's enabled Mr. T to do this so conveniently is current technology. Personally, I don't think the *ability* to duplicate someone else's work easily means it should be okay. I wonder what will happen if matter replicators ever exist. What happens to this equation when you can copy *anything* given a template and a bunch of energy. >> You seem to think that, because there are other ways in which the >> explorer could be SOL that they are all the same. They are not. > > No I don't. I argue that since there are otherways to get the > same effects, referring to these effect is useless as an argument. Well, I've understood you to say that, because Mr. E could also suffer great loss from savvy, but fair, competition, therefore we cannot say much about Mr. T copying the map, since the outcome is similar. >> In most cases, fair competition occurs on a level field. > > No it doesn't. Some people have more knowledge, some people > have more money, some people are better in organising. > > The field is all but level. But they all start from the same point (having nothing) and strive to reach the goal (having something) on their own. Yes, I agree some people will be better able to reach that goal because of their OWN talents or resources. What's WRONG, IMO, is copying the resources of others without leave. We recognize, in society, such things as privacy and inviolability of the person (which says to me that we do recognize that information can be owned--the law recognizes that I own medical information about me, for instance). > I have shown a number of differences between property and information. > Even you have to acknowdlege this difference. Certainly. Per your definitions I believe you can own both. To me they are the same. (Coincidentally, I just took a corporate-required online course about data privacy--it mentioned that over 50 countries have laws concerning individuals right to own their personal data.) > If something is not your property and you alter it, even improve it > that doesn't make it your property. How would I alter something I didn't own? > But if you find a recipe in a public place like a library and then > alter it and improve it, you do think this improved recipe is > now your property. Yes. > You didn't refute these difference,... I may have, but since you're not referencing anything specific, I don't know which part of this you mean. However, with regard to the above. Yes, I do believe that if I used something already given to the public and made sufficient alterations to make it "new" or unique, then I would own it in that form. Likewise, if I find wood in a publically available location and use that wood to make a chair, don't I own that chair? >>>> Thankfully, I'm one of the only owners of my ATM PIN number. > > In what way do you think you own this number? Do you think noone else > can use this number for anything? Do you think you are the only one > with this PIN number? Of course not, the only thing you have is > the exclusive right to use this number in combination with a credit > card or something like wise. But you are not the owner of any number. Actually, I do own the number 342659877636254998736254512998364. Had it for years. (-: Sorry, thought we needed a little levity. Yes, I don't own the specific number any more than an author owns the letters or words in his book. What an author owns is total package--in the case of a book, the way the letters and words are strung together. And therein lies an important difference. I did not CREATE this number--I, for lack of a better word, bought the bank account and the number to access it. It's my number for my bank account and--in that context--I say I own that number. But aren't we getting far afield of owning one's CREATIVE output? >> people from taking my car. What I can do--because I own that car >> and because I own my bank account AND THE MEANS TO ACCESS IT--is >> seek legal recourse. > > Now you are just playing word games. No, I don't play word games. I may make errors or be sloppy in my arguments or have a bad day, but I do not play word games. > If you play it this way, you can own anything, because you can always > seek legal resource however rediculous your claim. No, implicit was I had the moral right to legal recourse and the reasonable expectation of success. >> Fine, forget all the terminology. My work, my sweat and blood. >> Do I have the right to determine how it is used? > > It depends. To give an extreme example, someone that robs a bank > has also put sweat and blood into it. You don't have the moral right to own what was immorally gotten. (Which is exactly why I think copying is wrong.) >>> Now if you want to argue that copying is immoral and should >>> be illegal that it is one thing, but it doesn't imply stealing. >> >> Well, I'm definitely arguing copying without permission is immoral. If it were immoral, what would be the name of the crime? >> ...Hollywood figures it loses billions of $$ in lost sales.... > > I would say a film is different from a beer recipe. In a sense the > film is the product that is payed for, but people don't pay for > the recipe, they pay pay for the beer. So IMO these two don't > need to be treated the same. Maybe there are good arguments to > do so, but I don't see the need a priori. Let's see if I can make those arguments. I like full-flavored micro beers, and I won't touch most USA mass- produced swill (and never "lite" beer). I--in a very real sense-- am paying for a type of beer, and what makes it the type I pay for is the recipe. Even among beers I buy, I have favorites, and I am paying for the recipe--or at least the result of that recipe. If they changed it, I might no longer buy it. Most important, I buy THEIR beer because they own THAT recipe. If someone copied that recipe--Newcastle might well lose sales from me an others that favor their beer. If Newcastle did not agree to the the copying--it was obtained without their permission--then I see their lost sales as a form of theft, because the recipe was copied without leave--no different than if thieves had broken into their wherehouse and stolen many cases of finished product. I could also say I pay for the experience of the beer, since I do not own the recipe. Likewise, when I see a film, I pay for the experience of seeing that film. I can even buy a copy of that film so I can enjoy the experience at will. Chances are I will never see the script or the recipe that created the film or the beer. The respective owners own the information that comprises that recipe or that script. If I used available technology to copy the film--either from the copy I bought or by taking a recording device into the theatre-- then the lawful owner could lose sales due to my unpermitted act. So... I guess I see more similarities than not. Over to you. I'm outta here for the weekend. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .