Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Procedure for rec.humor.funny debate
Message-ID: <2726@looking.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 89 00:32:21 GMT
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo Ont.
Lines: 69

I am distressed by this recent tone of "ownership of intellectual work
is evil" on the net.  Is it just a loud few, or is it a real, amost
unanimous sentiment?

To find out, if the tone of this discussion doesn't change in a week or
so, then we will hold a vote.  Clearly the vote should not be conducted
by myself or my attackers.

I suggest that one impartial person on a major site hold the vote.  Two
statements will be prepared, independently.  (Neither will get to see
the other before posting.)  The statements, and a description of the vote
will be posted to rec.humor.funny.  The readers will register their
opinion.

We will then know what the netters think, and can then work from facts
rather than speculation and flamage.

Those of you who wish to argue against the concept of compilation copyright
and the implications I have outlined should get together and form your
document.

While right now it may seem like an argument over one newsgroup, it actually
is an argument of what political philosophy reigns on the network.  As the
net is actually a private federation without a governing body, it is,
in fact a libertarian or "minarchist" system.  It has almost no rules, but
does exist and is governed by the laws of the nations in which net sites
reside.  These provide rules like copyright, electronic communications
privacy, private control of individual sites, obscenity laws, freedom
from (or being subject to) government censorship, and of course a court
system that sits behind it all.

That's the reality, but other internal structures are possible.  Some
desire a "communist" system, where nothing can be owned, and everything
is free -- where everything comes from each participant according to his/her
abilities and to each participant according to his/her needs.  Some opt
for pure communism (a subset of anarchy) where no rules enforce that, and
some, like the Free Software Foundation, opt for a communism where this
is enforced by the rules of the outside world.

Some would like anarchy, but the net will have trouble staying truly anarchist,
as some, Jonothan Richmond being a prime example, will always go outside
the system if they feel it necessary.  This was his right, you know, although
I wish he had had a greater understanding of what he was doing when he did
it.

Some would prefer a more strucutred system.  There are vestiges of democracy,
such as the newsgroup voting process and the vote I have described above.
There are also feudal lords who reign over large sites.  There are even
"benevolent dictators," if you will, such as moderators and people who
maintain things like the checkgroups messages.  There was once even an
oligarchy, known as the backbone cabal.

At times, some have suggested a real structure, with membership agreements
and the works.  This have never progressed very far.

It is my feeling that it is best to stick with the real, minarchist structure
that underlies the net.  But others disagree.  The communist ideal of
complete and free flow of information has appeal, but it is my belief
that private ownership actually encourages the development and flow of
resources/information in both the real world and the information world.

-------
To close off, let me warn those of you in the USA that I don't use the
word communist in the perjoritave sense that most Americans do.  I use
it in its true sense -- as descriptive of a philosophy that is primarily
associated with the concept of the absence of private property.  Nothing
to do with the soviets at all.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473