Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!uflorida!novavax!maddoxt
From: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Piracy
Keywords: copy protection piracy
Message-ID: <558@novavax.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jun 88 02:33:12 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <501@novavax.UUCP> <309@proxftl.UUCP>
Reply-To: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox)
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Lines: 37

In article <309@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes:
>
>I am committed to the free flow of information, or more specifically, of
>*ideas*.  Copyright law does not treat *ideas* as intellectual property.
>An idea cannot be copyrighted; only a particular expression of an idea
>can be.

	How you can be committed to the "free flow of information" and
yet in favor of restricting "particular expression of an idea" is
beyond me.  "Idea" and "expression" cannot be so clearly separated. 
If they could, there would be no problem.  

>For example, Lotus Corp. has copyrighted a particular expression (the
>1-2-3 program) of the *idea* of a spreadsheet program.  Nonetheless, the
>idea of a spreadsheet program is still freely and legally available to
>anyone interested, and anyone who wishes can write a spreadsheet program
>of his or her own.

	How about the idea of the row and column spreadsheet as first
embodied in Visicalc?  By what logic is that "idea," not
"expression"?  Very very slippery terrain.

>Thus, the enforcement of personal property rights by copyright law does
>not conflict with the free flow of information.

	Try again.  Sure it does.  Information is first and foremost a
clearly quantifiable property, x number of bytes, etc.  Enforcement of
any kind of copyright clearly restricts the flow.  Such is its
intent. 
	The questions remain:  what restrictions should properly
apply, what not?  
	I just talked to a man who spent the past few years in Hong
Kong as a teacher.  There at the Golden Market (is that the right
phrase?) he saw the unfettered flow of information in absolute
violation of copyright.  
	"Copyright will soon be extinct," he said.  
	Maybe so.  Maybe it's not a bad thing.  What's interesting is,
then what?