Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!munnari!kre
From: kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Should encrypted radio be legally protected?
Message-ID: <1232@munnari.OZ>
Date: Sun, 31-Aug-86 00:29:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: munnari.1232
Posted: Sun Aug 31 00:29:33 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Aug-86 19:53:10 EDT
References: <1632@well.UUCP> <1013@hoptoad.uucp> <1170@utastro.UUCP> <1986Aug30.142414.21634@utcs.uucp>
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 26

In article <1986Aug30.142414.21634@utcs.uucp>, gnu@utcs.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> I am a great fan of breaking-and-entering laws, but I don't believe that
> anyone "owns" a piece of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The concept of "ownership" is just defined by common agreement -
Parliament (Congress) can disposess you of your house tomorrow if
it wants.  Similarly, they can give you half the Pacific Ocean, or
half the electromagnetic spectrum, or anything else they like.

All laws are simply agreements by the community that it should be so,
or should not be so.

If the governing segment of the community (the majority in a democracy,
some other part in other societies) believe that its right that the
electromagnetic spectrum be owned, then it shall be.

The only real difference between houses and radio waves is that for a long
time now people have perceived a value in houses - they are something good
to own.  But until recently, there has been little perceived value in those
funny things that you can't even see - so no-one has wanted to own them.

Assuming that the spectrum can be owned, then there is no difference in
principle between stealing some of that, and stealing the terminal from
your home.

Robert Elz