Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: FREE Software, PD, and author compensation
Message-ID: <3126@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 20 Dec 88 14:26:24 GMT
References: <12748@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 43

In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) writes:
> I don't like the intellectual property agreements either.  I would very
> much like to know what happened to the Berne convention that came before
> Congress earlier this year.  Was it tabled, passed, or passed with the
> amendment IBM was lobbying for (namely, to remove the part that says you
> can't sign away your intellectual rights)?

This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to
your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can license
it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it." I'm sorry,
but if I own something (such as the fruit of my labors) and I want to sell
it that's my right. I may be foolish for doing so, but any law that says I
can't sell something is telling me I really don't own it.

Why should Joe Handyman be able to sell those crude painted wooden ducks by
the side of the road, but I can't sell a quick thirty-line program that took
about the same amount of effort, should I wish to sell it. Or even give it
away.

> 3. Things have not yet reached the stage where only one license of a
>    program is sold and all the rest is pirated.  In such a situation, the
>    *only* way for software people to get money would be a scheme such as
>    mine or Stallman's.

Things don't have to get quite so bad to drive software companies out of
business.

> How does this differ from the current system?  I, and everyone I have
> known, have not ever had the slightest difficulty getting pirated copies of
> software, when such is desired.

I don't know anyone who would have the slightest difficulty in buying drugs,
saturday-night specials, or explosives. I don't know anyone who would have the
slightest difficulty vandalising any number of houses, cars, buildings, etc....

The argument that "It's easy to do this so it can't be that wrong" is just
plain bull. People have no difficulty seeing the ethical problems with other
illegal acts.

As for "distributing the money according to the popularity of a product", why,
isn't that what we do now?
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net