Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: New Communicational Morality
Summary: Re: Reinhard Foessmeier's posting
Keywords: software, copyright, society
Message-ID: <3687@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Apr 89 09:38:28 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 99



Perspectives of a New Communicational Morality for the Cybernetical Era
			Helmar Frank

1. In the field of art and technology, not only the pollution of the natural
   (material) environment must be fought but also -- and with the same effort
   -- the pollution of the cultural (informational) environment. In a nutshell:
   Culture conservation is as important as nature conservation.
   ["Maxim of rejection of informational pollution"]

Whoa!  Bookburning time again!  Big Brother is going to protect
us against things we don't need to and shouldn't -- in *his*
opinion, of course -- know.  

Aside from being authoritarian and elitist (Lyndon LaRouche rides
again!), this is sheer sophistry.  Material pollution violates
people's rights, in that there is no choice involved.  But every
individual has the option of whether to watch TV, switch on the
radio, buy any given publication.  To be perfectly -- well,
"frank", about it, Just Say No To Censorship. 


2. The development of international scientific communication with the goal of
   future advances is more important than short-sighted, frantic acceleration
   of present advances in any special branch.  In a nutshell:  Advances for
   future communication are more important than communication of present
   advances.  ["Maxim of the priority of the communication process"]

I'm not convinced the two are incompatible -- but if they are,
who decides which is more important?  And how is that enforced?


3. The cultural community of the International Language, conscious that to
   commun-icate means to "make common", should be a pioneer on the road to
   informational commun-ism and a model to promote abolition of the anti-
   cultural laws based on the superstition of "soft-ware". In a nutshell:
   Copyright is a superstition hostile to civilization.  ["Maxim of
   non-commercialization of culture"]

Several thoughts here.  First: *again*, we have to listen to the
old mind/body dichotomy crap?  That is, in this case, once again
the nonsense that there's a difference between intellectual
property and material property?  That while people have a right
to the fruits of their manual labor, they don't have a right to
the fruits of their mental labor?

Second, note that Numbers 1 and 3 seem to be contradictory.
First, Datafuhrer Frank wants to protect us from too much
information for our poor little untermenschen minds to handle --
and then, supposedly. he wants to lower what he sees as 
barriers to the spread of information.  I am reminded of 
the question posed by the King of Siam in The King 
And I ... "If I have allies to protect me, might they 
not protect me out of everything I own?"

Third, eliminating copy rights (word broken into its components
deliberately) would reduce the introduction of new software.
Rational folks don't like being cows to be milked for the
glasses of others, and if they can't control their products, 
they won't produce.  But perhaps Datafuhrer Frank wants a
reduction in new software.  After all, he might think too 
much progress isn't good for us untermenschen!

Fourth - uh, is Datafuhrer Frank trying to tell us that material
communism has worked well enough to be a role model that
the information sciences should adopt?  If so, what planet
is he living on?  Material communism has meant poverty,
oligarchy, mass murder, brutal repression -- the list goes
on.  Is *that* what he wants the software field to emulate?

I'll defend Herr Frank's right to support authoritarian
elitism.  But count on me to oppose any attempts to
implement it.



>In september 1988 the AIS decided at San Marino to open an international
>discussion about a new communicational morality.  The above maxims are to
>be considered as a contribution to this discussion.

I hope anyone who gets a chance to contribute to this "international
discussion" points out that Datafuhrer Frank's positions do not
represent a "new communicational morality", but a very old, very
tired immorality: Big Brother Knows Best -- and I hope contributors
will work against such abominations.


Para un Tejas Libre,


Jeff Daiell



-- 
  If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
  Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.

                                   -- Don Paarlberg