From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Why the Piracy? Here's why...
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:12:50 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Organization: Novell, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <freek.726615644@groucho.phil.ruu.nl>, freek@phil.ruu.nl (Freek
Wiedijk) wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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).

So we should be able to travel at any speed we wish on the highways,
because everyone speeds anyway? (A frivolous example, I know.)

> 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.

Of course, companies would merely begin keeping trade secrets and never
share any information that could possibly benefit them. It was the rise of
patents and copyrights that largely encouraged the distribution of
information. The _main_ catalyst for the mostly free distribution of
information are the intellectual property laws.

> 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.)

And our software industry would, by and large, not exist. I would not have
majored in Computer Science, and I'm probably not the only one who would
say this. With fewer people doing the basic research, computer software and
hardware technology doesn't grow as fast. And we are using MS-DOS, because
Xerox PARC didn't have enough people to do the research, and the Mac didn't
exist. And 1984 was like 1984. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Remember how slowly 'darwinistic' evolution happens.

> 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.

We do pay for each scientific article. We pay for them (at least partially)
through our taxes, which go to grants supporting basic research. Scientists
need to eat, too. If there were no monetary support going to science, what
state do you think science would be in?

> Of course, this whole article is just wishful thinking :-)

Obviously.
 
> Freek
> --
> Third theory of Phenomenal Dynamics:  The difference between
> a symbol and an object is quantitative, not qualitative.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer