Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:507 alt.religion.computers:1085 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bu-cs!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!spdcc!merk!xylogics!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: GNUclear Warfare Message-ID: <1989Dec13.213445.13639@world.std.com> Date: 13 Dec 89 21:34:45 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 122 In-Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com's message of 13 Dec 89 14:39:09 GMT Ok, let's admit for a moment that FSF's point of view is radical and maybe a teensy-bit intended to attract attention to the issues of software copyright. I strongly suspect that if "the other side" was interested in some compromise (and, I suspect, there's more chance of that than the cynic might think, yes, it's making a difference) there might be some room in between. Now, consider for a moment "the other side". Like the SPA (Software Publisher's Association.) What is *their* raison d'etre? cause celebre'? Er, how about "goal"? Their extreme opposite position, and that of Apple and others, is that software copyrights can extend to things like look and feel. In other words, if I decide to use |vertical bars| to indicate boldface then perhaps I can copyright it and sue your ass if I catch you using them w/o my permission. Before you laugh consider Apple's claim on their copyright on the trashcan icon. Not laughing anymore? Good. Ok, let's grant that people deserve reward for innovation and all that. But at what point have the software vendors really established state enforced monopoly businesses? At what point are their businesses *only* viable in this so-called capitalist economy because they've managed to get the taxpayers to spend millions (if not billions) of dollars enforcing their profitability? Let's try some facts... Phoenix Technologies (the BIOS folks) recently claimed that they're on the verge of belly-up-itude (Chapt 11, bankruptcy) because of piracy. Whether that's true or not they were certainly trying to make a loud point and influence lawmakers. And I'm not sure we should take their emotion-loaded word "piracy" at face value. Maybe their business is (quite possibly and by their own admission) not viable in a free market economy. They need heavy subsidies from the Justice Department to make a go at it. They need our police and courts and investigative agencies and lawmakers and lord knows what else. Or else they don't make money. And, we're supposed to be concerned. How come this is all starting to sound like the "not growing corn business" and similar subsidies. Only this time, instead of direct subsidies, it's legal services subsidies. Ok, hey, if someone came into my store (I don't have a store, but if I did) and stole something wouldn't I expect a "taxpayer's subsidy" of the police coming by and ripping the guy's face off? What's the difference? Ain't that a basic part of the so-called "social contract"? Well, there is a difference. If I claimed that I'm going broke because about 20% of all high school kids (a typical claim) was ripping my store off, all a bunch of criminals, and therefore I need constant police surveillance, new laws regarding handling of my merchandise both before and after it's bought etc etc I think I'd be told to go take a flying leap. In fact, unless there's something very unusual about your situation, if you called the police more than like once a week (depending on the size of your store, whatever, "a lot") and reported a new data point in your personal shoplifting plague they'd tell you to go take a flying leap (more like, go hire security guards, put the merchandise somewhere it can't be ripped off, anything, but this has to be mostly 'your' fault.) Is it possible... Is it *just* possible? That selling $2 floppies for $395 might just not be a completely viable way to make a living (that is, without the police coming in to hit people over the head with sticks if they don't pay the $395.) Hey, no one is forcing you to buy it! Or use it (ie. rip it off)? Barry, are you arguing that if something is too expensive then stealing it is somehow justified? The old five-fingered discount? No, of course not. I'm just saying that, well, if I left gold jewelry on a table in a public place unattended and it was ripped off there's no doubt the people who stole it were thieves. But there's also no doubt that I was a fool and deserve only minimal sympathy from the authorities (ie. the public's tax dollars) in recovering my property. Even if it drove me out of business. And it's just possible that folks with attitudes like the SPA and Apple would be a hell of a lot happier as Commissars in the Soviet Union where you can go running to the govt authorities every time someone breaks one of the silly rules you had created and your (potentially) fabulous profits dwindle. Da, vee charge 50 rubles for a bottle of good state wodka and these INGRATES make their own for 5 kopeks and von't buy ours! Vee make wodka illegal to make without special license they can't get! Then vee get our 50 rubles! Anyone make their own, off to gulag! (oops, forgot about the AT&F, sorry...) But a free-market economy is no place for this (very expensive) nonsense. And I for one am getting quite disgusted with these companies' blatant attempts to create state-sponsored software monopolies. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs