Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!zap!iros1!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Copy protection etc
Message-ID: <998@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 88 11:07:06 GMT
References: <10332@mimsy.UUCP> <2239@zaphod.UUCP>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 51

In article <2239@zaphod.UUCP>, dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) writes:
> In article <10332@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>> [upgrading the Mercedes analogy with a (hypothetical, I hope!)
>> matter duplicator]
> The point is the people whose livelihood comes from
> designing/building/selling (...) the Merc (etc) in the first place.

So?  What about all the whale-oil lamp companies that went under when
electrical lighting came in?  What about their livelihood?

What about all the carriage companies that the auto makers put out of
business?

Do you also oppose attempts to ban nuclear weapons because it would
take away the livelihood of those who make them?

> The point is also that if you could duplicate things, then the
> incentive to create and improve products and to prosper from doing so
> would disappear.

Oh nonsense.  Look at how many gadgets were invented, how much software
was written, simply because the inventor/author felt like it.  In the
case of software, consider all the free software.  Whatever motivated
the creation of that software is clearly not such as to disappear in
the world we are imagining.

> Can you imagine a world where no one was motivated to produce a
> better tool than MicroSoft Word?

No.  I daresay anyone who's used it would be so motivated (I cannot
recall even one program I've used that I have not been motivated to
improve).  Unfortunately only a very few have the skill to do so.

> The question I put to all of the net is:

> If a software protection scheme existed that produced no hardships to
> the honest user and only acted to prevent people from obtaining the
> software by means other than purchasing it, would you support that
> form of software protection?

No, I think.  You are asking me to decide without seeing the scheme,
which makes it more difficult.  Also, I believe your hypothetical
scheme cannot exist because you have placed mutually incompatible
conditions on it.  Why no?  Because the notion of purchasing copies of
information feels wrong.  I am more or less in agreement with Mike "My
watch has windows" Meyer's arguments on this.

					der Mouse

			uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp
			arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu