Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!hao!oddjob!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!hyper!guest
From: guest@hyper.UUCP (guest)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Copyrights and Coercion
Message-ID: <1542@hyper.UUCP>
Date: 11 Mar 88 18:59:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls. MN
Lines: 57
Keywords: Coercion Evil


Logajan says:
>>   Coercion - The initiation of the use of physical force, or the
>>              the threat thereof.
>>   Fraud    - (I will avoid defining the term fraud, except to say
>>               that it is non-passive -- it requires the initiation
>>   Theft    - The use of coercion or fraud to obtain some value.
>> ... The copyright holder is the thief!!!!

wallman-george@cs.yale says:
> Yesterday I went into my local store to get a game. I took it from
> the shelf and tried to walk out of the door. "Hold it", said the
> owner,"drop the game, or I call the police". I dropped the game.
> And of course I immediately went to the cops and told them about the
> theft the store owner had committed.

wallman-george@cs.yale's counter-example is much more interesting than
his analysis of it.  He essentially concludes that 'common-sense'
dictates definitions for concepts like 'theft' which we ought leave
undisturbed. I don't find that a very enlightened world view, frankly.

His counter-example is good in that it does indeed address a rather
enormous hole in my definition of theft.  Something was left out due to
my pre-occupation with the normal modes of software piracy.  My definition
was good as far as it went, it just didn't go far enough to cover all
that we intuitively feel it should.  It wasn't general enought.

I was thinking about how to fix it, but what I was coming up with sounded
too ad hoc-ish.  (Something Mr. Wallman complained about.)  Then I recalled
something I was thinking about four years ago -- a more general theory
of rational human interaction.  Only now did I realize the broad power of
this new theory.  It's an Occam's razor of human interaction, against
which all inter-human conduct can be compared. To wit:

The General Theory of Reciprocity:
    Anyone who initiates action X toward another cannot then rationally
    object to the application of equivalent action X toward himself.

Let's try a few examples:

1) Anyone who initiates the use of force against another cannot object
   to the use of force against himself. (Justification of self-defense.)

2) Anyone who initiates the use of fraud ...

3) Anyone who initiates the taking of property from another cannot object
   to the taking of property from himself. (Wallman's case -- disproved!)

4) Anyone who initiates the copying of software from another cannot object
   to the copying of his software.  (Logajan's case -- proved!) 

I like this new theory.  I think I'll call it Logajan's Theory, or how
about Logajan's Rule ... err wait ... how about:

       Logajan's Golden Rule  ... Yeah! That's the ticket!

- John M. Logajan            {...!rutgers!} umn-cs!hyper!ns!logajan
- Network System Corp.;  7600 Boone Ave;   Brooklyn Park,  MN 55428