Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!motcid!mellman
From: mellman@motcid.UUCP (Tom Mellman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musings on constitutionality - Result of Neidorf charges
Message-ID: <4651@graphite18.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 90 15:59:49 GMT
References: <1990Sep18.112039.18672@src.dec.com>
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Lines: 34

In article <1990Sep18.112039.18672@src.dec.com> denning@src.dec.com (Dorothy Denning) writes:
>>
>> [ Tom Mellman wrote: ]
>>I mean, at the very basis of this is issue is the definition of
>>stolen property.  How can you steal something from someone if you
>>don't deprive him of it?
>
>The best argument I have heard is that you deprive the person of the
>right to control the distribution and use of the information.
>

That's what I mean by it being scary: this seems to me to be a
redefinition of the word theft.  I understand now that the law
clearly includes surreptitious copying as theft, but isn't that
where we lost track of reasonableness?  Now we're building case
law on top of a basic distortion.

I do think that surreptitious copying is a crime - I just don't
think it's theft.

I sometimes suspect that this nation has lost its industrial
competitiveness, and instead of trying to regain a sense of
manufacturing and engineering quality, everybody is off playing
with computers.  As a consequence, we think we're strong in
software.  Since we have so little else to offer the world markets,
we want to elevate software to the level of "property" by
legislating it so.

But the result will have to lead to a level of governmental
probing into all of our consciousnesses that can be nothing
short of totalitarian.

-- 
Reply-to: motcid!mellman@uunet.uu.net