From: seanmcd@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Why the Piracy? Here's why...
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:48:39 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <freek.726615644@groucho.phil.ruu.nl>, freek@phil.ruu.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes:
> I would prefer a world in which there were no intellectual
> property laws.  I don't think it is unethical to copy
> something.  At least, not when the copying doesn't disturb
> the use of the original item.

What *is* the 'original item'? I hope that you produce something
like a piece of software some day and then get killed by pirates;
we'll see how utopian you are then.
> 
> My reasons for this are the following:
> 1. It's the status quo.  Everyone _already_ copies everything
>    (from CD's on DAT, to software on disks, to books on
>    paper).

An idealist justifying idealism by pragmatism? I shudder to think
what other unethical practices could fall under the rubric of 'It's
the status quo'...

> 2. I would like there to be a giant reservoir of knowledge
>    that's free for everyone to add to or take from (e.g., the
>    complete library of congress, digitalized, on the
>    Internet; can you say Xanadu? I knew you could!)  And I
>    mean that _everything_ should be in it (all science, all
>    literature, all music, all art, etc.).  The _main_
>    obstacle for this kind of enterprise is intellectual
>    property law.

But you're confusing knowledge with art here! Surely there is a
distinction between facts and artistic endeavour, the artistic/
creative expression of ideas.

> 3. If there was no restriction on copying, there would be a
>    much more `darwinistic' evolution in intellectual
>    products.  Inferior programs would stand a much smaller
>    chance of ever being used.  (Example: if Apple software
>    was not protected by copyright law, there would be cheap
>    Macintosh clones, and _no-one_ would use MS-DOS or
>    Windows.)

Well, I wish you would explain how there would be *any* software
at all on computers if this were the case. We'd have hardware but no
software. Do you really think that Apple would keep hundreds of people
working on system software if they weren't getting paid for it???

> 4. The highest grade information that I know is `science'.
>    Try to imagine a world in which you had to _pay_ for each
>    scientific article that you need to look at for your
>    research or if you wanted to build on the results from
>    such an article.  In what state would science be in such a
>    world.  In other words: I prefer the way information is
>    handled in science to the way it's handled in the software
>    industry.

Excuse me, Freek, but haven't you noticed that such things as 'research
grants' cost *billions* of dollars and provide universities with much
of their operating incomes? There is much less 'free' science out there
than free art. Do you really think that university scientists aren't
busily acquiring intellectual property rights for their discoveries??
When I see lucrative industrial processes published in the public domain
maybe i'll believe you...Universities in Canada have increased their
arts undergraduate enrollment because these students are cash cows; the
science end of the school costs money. Do you think that there are lots
of people doing science who aren't getting paid for it?

There's a distinction also between science, where the 'facts' you refer
to which are in journals are discoverable by anyone (and hence if people
started charging for info., others would just find out for themselves if
it would save them money). In art/creation there is idea+creativity in
the product itself. That's why, for instance, someone's calculation of
the thermal conductivity of a new alloy might not be intellectual property
(no individual creative element in the *end* result) while an author's
computer game is (*lots* of creativity in the final result). But maybe
you could go down to Intel and ask them for a look around their chip
fab setup. What? It's science? It's information? And they're not letting
you in? Ah, but what intellectual property rights protect on the science
end are processes such as chip production, where someone has used the
facts creatively to create a *way of doing something* (which is what
can be protected by the law). Science is not the panacea you paint it as.

(p.s. -- you don't have to pay to look in humanities journals either...)

> 
> Of course, this whole article is just wishful thinking :-)
> 
> Freek
> --
> Third theory of Phenomenal Dynamics:  The difference between
> a symbol and an object is quantitative, not qualitative.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer