Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 08:50 am Op 2005-09-24, Chris Sonnack schreef : > (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. Well yes. You bring no argument that leads to the conclusion of stealing, unless you a priori see the copying as stealing. [ Same kind of story, where E invested in information and T copied that information ] > > 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*. Fine you say yes, fine you see it that way. Can you also argue your case. It seems not. > What's enabled Mr. T to do this so conveniently is current technology. It is that same technology that enables Mr E to copy his own maps and reproduce them at lower prices. Besides the technolgy of beer is not so advanced. So people who copied a recipe, still need a lot of investments to start a brewery, yet you think of copying such a recipe as theft. So I think technology is of little relevance here. > Personally, I don't think the *ability* to duplicate someone else's > work easily means it should be okay. And how far will you go here. Suppose a young chess talent begins his games with a new opening that baffless oponents and gains him a lot of wins. Should it be wrong of other players to use this opening themselves, to win them a match. Because if other players use this opening and win with it, this will lower the rank of our talent, which will result in him getting less paid when invited to play somewhere. Are scientists stealing, when they use the information of other scientists to their advantage? > 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. We can't say much about Mr T copyimg using this kind of stories. Maybe there are good arguments, but for some reason all I see is this kind of stories that are only good for those who already agree, but which contain no argument for those who are not convinced. >>> 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. So, if the rules stipulated that everyone could use any information available, the field would be level in the same sense as before. Maybe Mr E wouldn't start his exploration or would organize it differently to ensure his profits but the field would be just as level as they all start from the same point (having nothing) and strive to reach the goal (having something) with the information available. > 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.) A play with words IMO. About any institute I encounter, wants my name, my address and my birthday, usually they want to know wether I'm married. How can one say I own this information. >> 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? You could be a decorator, you could be a repairman, you could have borrowed something and altered it with or without permission. >> 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? No, because it is not because the wood is in a publically available location that the wood itself is publically available. Likewise a book in a library, doesn't mean there is no copy right. [ ... ] >>> ...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. I would say, you pay for the taste. If someone was able to reproduce the taste with a whole different recipe. Wouldn't you buy this beer too. > 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. And this is where the film differs from a beer. You can buy the film on DVD and experience the film again and again. If you want to experience that beer again, you need to buy another one. > 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. But the script is not the film. Very different films can come from the same script. -- Antoon Pardon. .