Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!mjm
From: mjm@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: New Communicational Morality
Summary: I agree with many of Prof. Frank's points
Keywords: software, copyright, society, communication, information
Message-ID: <13060@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 14 Apr 89 18:42:43 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: mjm@dartmouth.edu (Michael McClemen)
Lines: 87

In article <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>,
foessmei@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) writes:

>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"]

I agree.  While I determinedly oppose any form of censorship, I make a
distinction between the right to make information available to the public at
large and the right to force such information on them against their will.  On
the rare occasions when I visit the house of someone who keeps their television
tuned to commercial channels, I come away feeling much worse than if I had been            
in a room full of cigarette smoke.  As well, the same sort of consumer-product
laws that currently apply to american manufacture (e.g. making it illegal to
produce products that are unsafe, will cause cancer, etc.) can be applied to
commercial television -- I would particularly like to see more laws regulating
the content of programming aimed at small children, who are less able to
determine for themselves what is harmful or misleading.  Note that there are
already some of these in effect, and other regulatory laws as well:  the
Federal government has outlawed all advertising of tobacco products and of hard
liquor on network television for decades.  The flip side of this question is,
of course, positive:  the encouragement of alternate information channels (e.g.
public television and radio, newspapers) that carry less obtrusive and higher
quality information.

>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"]

The major reason that I decided against a career in any of the theoretical
disciplines I studied in college (biochemistry, physics, ai) was the realization
that with the amount of scientific information growing at an exponential rate,
more and more of a researcher's time is being spent simply trying to keep up
with current advances in their field, and possibly mistakenly duplicating other
researchers' work.  Without basic changes in the way we manage and exchange
scientific information, I think that there is a large possibility that the
research community will soon be literally paralyzed by success.

>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"]

This statement is certainly open to mis-interpretation.  It is certainly true
that someone has to pay for the development of software, a costly process
(I know, for I have worked for a commercial software house.)  And, since the
authors of software, being not very numerous, can certainly not pay for it
themselves, it falls to the rest of the community to bear the cost somehow.
This settled, we can, with an open mind, discuss various alternative mechanisms
for such tariff to be levied.  Copyrights are one mechanism, which has been
tried with varying degrees of success.  There may well be others.  I have
serious reservations about the concept of copyright as it is currently
interpreted.  For example, I believe that (a) the author of a work has some
right to decide how the work is used.  (b) once a work is released for sale to
the public at large, a member of the public has a right to use said work or its
pieces, with suitable credit and very likely suitable payment, in any way he
or she desires.  (c) use of information not for profit (e.g. for education)
should possibly be exempt from such royalty payments.  I am by no means certain
about these points, but they are at least worth considering.

I get rather annoyed whenever I hear someone say "oh, but we can't use that <artwork,
excerpt, etc> because it's copyrighted".  I was once told that in the music
industry, anyone has the right to re-record anyone elses' song, and the original
author is entitiled to an industry-standard payment, no more.  In other words,
once a song has been released for sale to the public, the author cannot restrict
who will use *or even re-record* it.  I may have been mislead, but even so
it is a protocol I approve of.  I certainly see no harm in considering such
ideas, nor do I see the immanent demise of the software or of any other industry
on their account.

Please, let's see more open-minded discussion on this topic, and less of fanatical
rejection of ideas.

Michael McClennen
mjm@dartmouth.edu