Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!afit-ab!wbralick
From: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: New Communicational Morality
Keywords: software, copyright, society
Message-ID: <1038@afit-ab.arpa>
Date: 10 Apr 89 06:06:41 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <3687@ficc.uu.net> <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu>
Reply-To: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick)
Distribution: na
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
Lines: 162



In article <1672@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes:
>
> [some material deleted ...]
>
>Now back to software copyright.  I think the philosophy expressed by a
>Soviet writer some years ago in explaining the copyright laws of the 
>Soviet Republics is a good one.  (Each of the 15 "Repulbics" has its
>own laws).  The purpose should be (he claims and I agree) to balance
>the right of the author of a program to reasonable compensation for his
>efforts with the "right" of the public to use the software.


You state that the State has a valid concern to balance the rights of
the creator (author) of a program to "reasonable" compensation and
the "right" of the public to use this creation.  I am confused about
(1) Who defines what is reasonable?  A commission of some kind?  A
top-ranking government official?  (2) What _is_ the proper balance?
Is there a formula that an aspiring software author can use to find
those pieces of software for which his rights will be the greatest?
(Some might say that the market does this automatically.)  And 
(3) This would seem to work best where people are actively prevented
from leaving the jurisdiction of this copyright scheme, since the
best software authors would probably be content to earn what
the market would bear and the mediocre folks would welcome any
guaranteed compensation.


>I think
>that the recognition of the public's right to use the software is
>important (but this does not necessarily mean the right to use it at no
>cost at all).

The author is the owner unless he has granted such rights to another
party, e.g. his employer.  The public has only those rights that the 
author chooses to grant to the public (setting aside the issue of
_personal_ backup copies, etc).  The implication above is that 
a software author will be compelled to _share_ the fruits of his
labor without a freely negotiated agreement between the producer
and the consumer.  Perhaps more sharers and gatherers would make 
software production more efficient by relieving software authors
of the problem of what to do with all that money....

>
>Software has all the attributes of a free good since the marginal cost
>of making another copy is next to nothing.

TANSTAAFL.  The only free goods that I can conceive of are the air,
gravity, and sunlight.  Even these depend on circumstances ...
the air that cosmonauts breathe is quite expensive.  The sunlight
in my garden can be blocked by a sufficiently tall building, so to
protect my access to the "free" sunlight requires purchasing 
additional property.  Perhaps there is some confusion between 
making another _copy_ of an existing program and the cost of 
producing the _first_ such copy.  Relative to the property rights
of the owner, the marginal cost of a copy is meaningless, what is 
the marginal cost of one more issue of a newspaper with a circulation 
of over 100,000?  How about one more book in a run of 200,000?  The 
claim is being made that there is some marginal cost limit below 
which a producer has no property rights.  What is that limit?  Exactly.
To the nearest 10,000th of a cent.  How was it arrived at?  Can such a 
standard ever be anything but arbitrary and thus require en_force_ment?


>However, to qualify for a
>free good it should also be of general usefulness.  Thus I would
>propose that the United Nations (or another international organization)
>pay for the development of general purpose free software (editors,
>compilers, spread sheets etc.).

Let's see, what nation produces the most software worldwide?  Take your
time....  Now, what nation pays the most (per capita) for the privilege
of belonging to the UN?  What nation is continually abused for not
signing up to the latest in collectivist pap spread by the failed
socialized economies (models of our new morality)?  Do we detect any
potential conflicts here?

>Taxes could be levied on computer
>equipment to help pay for this (but the UN has no such authority at
>present). 

Sure.  Those who are going to donate the fruits of their labor to
be shared and gathered by the world's top bureaucrats can also pay
them to do it.  Do you think the suckers will really go for this
one?  Perhaps they will ... heck, ol' Hank Reardon worked his
tush off up to the last minute ...


>They could also evaluate the existing free software and plan
>improvements to it.  To save development costs, they could get students
>to work on it as class projects as well as recruit other volunteers.

Sure, gee, do you think that both of the Computer Science students
in the US will want to work on those projects?  What is meant by
development cost?  I thought the only important cost was the 
marginal cost...

>
>The copyright laws on software need to be changed.  First, a copyright
>holder should have the duty to make source code (adequately commented)
>available to all who request it.

Perhaps "society" should jump right in and comment that code _for_
the author.  Oh, I forgot, the gatherers and sharers don't actually
produce anything except, of course, _fairness_.  Actually this is 
a great idea since the copyright guys could say, "Hmmmph, this 
code is inadequately commented.  You have failed in your duty to
society, comrade.  You will of course receive no remuneration until
the commenting meets our satisfaction."  The trick here is that
there are no standards and the poor schmuck could comment until
Siberia melts and never get paid.

The source of the code will dry up.  There are other creative
things people who write good algorithms can do that will provide
just as much satisfaction and greater income (after the sharers 
and gatherers get their mitts on _their_ share).  Of course the
solution to that problem is to make sure that no industry suffers
from a lack of sharers and gatherers.  

>Large economies will accrue if others
>can reuse some of this code, but not for producing a similar piece of
>software.

Some might say that _no_ economies will accrue, because nobody (except
the daft) will produce software.  But look there's more ... now we
have jobs for people (who aren't very good at writing code (or
the sharers and gatherers would _encourage_ them to do that instead))
to check the new code written by the non-socially-schizophrenic
software authors against every other piece of software written to 
ensure that the State's expensive software reproduction equipment
(which runs at zero (0!!!) marginal cost) isn't wasted on software
that isn't new, unique, creative, etc.  

>You may claim that if I write a program and others use it
>freely in other applications, then I am being hurt.  But I am being
>greatly benefited by having the right to put into my programs any of
>the huge pool of source code which would be available.

One wonders who will bother looking for a new, better algorithm for
doing anything, when the reward is that everybody gets to use it
and the producer will get to freely use all that stuff that is 
demonstrably worse.  What will a rational individual do ... hmmm ...
find a new career in the food service industry, no doubt.

Let us say that my neighbor and I both build a house.  My house 
is made of brick and is well constructed. I built it with great care.
My neighbor's house is built of cardboard and will not stand up
in a strong breeze.  Now we both go to the Bolshoi ballet and
since my neighbor returns home first, he gladly enters his nice new
brick house in confidence that I will benefit from the greatly
expanded pool of available housing -- his cardboard box.  No doubt
once I produce a brick house for everybody in the nation, I will
finally be able to live in one.

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