Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!rutgers!shelby!apple!oliveb!logicon.arpa!trantor.harris-atd.com!x102c!bbadger
From: bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copywrongs
Message-ID: <2574@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 22 Aug 89 00:51:19 GMT
References: <11143@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <8908182307.AA11856@nlp9> <12440@s.ms.uky.edu>
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: bbadger@x102c.harris-atd.com (Badger BA 64810)
Organization: Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL
Lines: 56

In article <12440@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas Kunselman) writes:
>I think we are already heading towards the direction of 'free' information.
[deleted]
>research and development among the many users in an equal and non-profiteering
>manner.  
>
>Already we are seeing things like this, especially with the Japanese, but
>also here with the Open Software Foundation and similar organizations. 
>When development costs have been paid for there is no reason NOT to copy
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the information for free.  I believe it could get quite difficult to 
>produce new information products for 0 real development costs.  
>
[deleted]
>-- 
>Thomas Kunselman                              {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek          
>Office of Institutional Research       bitnet: tek@ukma.bitnet
>Kentucky State University            internet: tek@ms.uky.edu
>Frankfort, KY 40601                     Educate, Don't Legislate! 

Except for the usual one:  obscene profits!   What incentive is there to 
stop?  Of course, in a market economy, we hope that someone just a little 
less greedy will step in and produce a similar product at a lower cost.

Intellectual property laws (copyright, patents and trade secrets) were 
formulated to protect the originators of ideas and information.  The motives
are varied, but legislators are usually putting some perceived measure of 
societal gain into the law.  (Personal gain, alas, sometimes, too.)

These laws are sometimes used to legitimize a stranglehold on technology and
squelch ``similar'' inventions, which is part of the ``price'' society 
pays for the laws.  Judging the balance of incentive for invention, against
disclosure and free dissemination, is quite tricky.  Note that copyright 
and patents both have a healthy dose of dissemination in them.  Trade secrets
and licensing are much more restrictive.

I'd like to point out also, that even traditional economics is not a 
zero sum game.  There are producers and consumers.  Those farmers don't 
just happen to have all that grain to begin with, they GROW it.  This 
contradicts the notion of capitialists competing for a fixed supply of
matter and energy pellets.  Some combination of raw materials, time, 
energy and information go into a product.  

There are many products which, like software, have small ``marginal costs''.
The classic example is pharmaceuticals.  Most of the expense is in the 
research, not the production.  Profits usually go to more research, but
bottom line-oriented stockholders and managers, can easily sway this.

It's iteresting that FSF is using the tool of copyright, which restricts
the free flow of information, to create the copyleft, which enforces 
access to information.  If the original poster of ``Copywrong'' and his 
followers undermine the Copyright, aren't they also undermining the Copyleft?
Bernard A. Badger Jr.	407/984-6385          |``Use the Source, Luke!''
Secure Computer Products                      |``Get a LIFE!''  -- J.H. Conway
Harris GISD, Melbourne, FL  32902             |Buddy, can you paradigm?
Internet: bbadger%x102c@trantor.harris-atd.com|'s/./&&/g' Tom sed expansively.