Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!afit-ab!wbralick
From: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: New Communicational Morality
Summary: same stuff ... different day
Keywords: software, copyright, society
Message-ID: <1031@afit-ab.arpa>
Date: 6 Apr 89 19:09:00 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Reply-To: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick)
Distribution: na
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
Lines: 125

I tried to reply (e-mail) to this, but it bounced ... twice.
So I decided to post it.  Not interested?  Then hit _n_, now.



Here goes ...

In article <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> you write:
)
) [Your introduction deleted ... I will respond to Mr. Frank's points]
)
)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
)Perspectives of a New Communicational Morality for the Cybernetical Era
)			Helmar Frank
)
)Due to progress in cybernetical technology, information is piling up
)and its exchange and processing is speeding up to a such degree that the
)principles of traditional communicational morality are shaking.  Three
)maxims of a new communicational morality seem to be more adequate for the
)cybernetical era.
)
)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"]

-3

Please define exactly which pieces of "culture" you would reject,
your rejection criteria, the mechanism for suppression, and the
source of your authority for doing so.

While I can agree that cultural conservation is a desirable goal, I 
believe that the problem here is that there is no accounting for
taste.  In other words, let us say that I think that Jackson 
Pollock is a cultural "polluter" (i.e. say that I think his art is 
garbage).  Shall I then proscribe any museum from purchasing his 
"art?"  What gives me the authority to act in such a fashion?  
How much _force_ should I use to enforce my concept of culture on 
others?  Note that in the US such action is illegal (unconstitutional).

I reject television as a cultural polluter *in my own house* -- I
have no right to _force_ you to stop watching television.  I can
only argue for you to decide to eliminate television viewing from your 
daily activities.

Contemporary culture is a (normal?) distribution of the population
plotted against the continuum of cultural options.  You desire to
restrict the cultural options.  This will at best skew the curve
and at worst result in violent opposition.

In a nutshell:  I will agree only if _I_ get to decide what 
                is "pollution." ;-)

)
)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"]

-3

To promote the priority of communication ignores the _quality_ of the 
communication.  Some ideas about the communication process (these
maxims, for example) are worth considerably less than _any_ communication
about, say, cold fusion.  So to prioritize on the basis of purported
subject matter is short-sighted, foolish, and doomed to failure.

In a nutshell: The more rapid the communication, the less time there is
               for thought -- result: information inflation (each piece
               of information is worth less and less).

)
)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"]
)

-3

Commun-icate means to make common -- between the sender and his intended
receiver, not necessarily to make common among all people (unless such is 
the intent of the _sender_).  This is a really _obvious_ point.  I suggest 
you read _Atlas Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand.  You should understand that (1) you 
cannot _force_ people to be creative, (2) you cannot communicate (make 
common) the _ability_ to be creative, and (3) any attempt to wrest the 
intellectual property (soft-ware for example) from those who _are_ creative 
to benefit those who are _not_ creative will result in a general lack of 
creativity in the culture (since you punish creativity and reward 
intellectual sloth).  Ask the Soviet Union how well this concept works
in, say, agriculture.  This is just another example of people who think 
it is their right to take by force that which they cannot themselves 
produce.  It is the "culture" of an information-age Ghengis Khan.  

Note that this maxim violates the second maxim, since you hereby seek to 
destroy the incentives for producing software.  Yes, some people will 
produce software just 'cause they like to, but some people _won't_ 
produce software unless you _pay_ them.  If you cannot pay them (since 
you cannot copyright the software and make a profit) then they will not 
produce software.  So, if your goal is to eliminate software, you have 
found the solution.

In a nutshell:  Property rights are a necessary condition for civilization.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how this set of maxims could be considered seriously by
anybody with a passing acquaintance with economics, history,
or common sense.  The maxims are ill-reasoned, unworkable, and 
destructive of those things they say they promote.  Sorry about that,
but you asked for my opinion...


Regards,

-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz