Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!unido!ztivax!tumuc!lan!foessmei From: foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Comm. Morality (summary) Summary: reactions to Frank's theses Keywords: software, copyright, society Message-ID: <825@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> Date: 17 Apr 89 13:18:31 GMT References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <3687@ficc.uu.net> <985@quintus.UUCP> <10212@megaron.arizona.edu> <990@quintus.UUCP> Reply-To: foessmei@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, TU Muenchen, FR Germany Lines: 72 Brief summary of contributions to the subject "New Communicational Morality" Considering the many reactions to my posting about the above subject, I feel I should at least try to summarize. Sorry I can't mention the names of everybody who brought up a certain idea. Only few contributors gave numerical marks; they were all negative, with emphasis on the third maxim ("non-commercialization of culture"). With regard to the first maxim ("rejection of informational pollution") several people claimed that information can always be avoided and therefore does not "pollute". Some suggested that the maxim comes close to or thoroughgoingly equals censorship. Because this really surprised me I suspected a mistake in my translation; so yesterday I turned to a profes- sional linguist to check the meaning of the term "morality". After con- sulting various dictionaries we agreed that it has to do with more or less generally accepted principles that are backed by this public consent but not enforced by legislative power. Therefore nobody need feel threatened by such a discussion or impute dictatorial intentions on somebody else. Maybe it annoyed some contributors that the word "law" was mentioned in one of the maxims. Others agreed that information is perceived not only intellectually but also emotionally and that there is not always choice involved. This is a field where censorship would indeed be hard to exercise and probably amount to injustice and restrictions for all; yet it is also a field where a change in morality (i.e. a change in the way people look upon matters) could do a lot of difference. It is hard to ignore commercial spots; yet if people would consider purely manipulative spots (i.e. such without any real information) as a point to the disadvantage of the product, this might give producers (and advertising agencies) something to think. The second maxim ("priority of the communication process") was perhaps the least well understood for its abstract formulation. This might also be my fault because I did not respect this very priority -- I might have studied my English school books a little more closely before (or instead of :-) posting the original article. Perhaps it was to be expected in a largely English-speaking community such as the USENET that linguistic problems are considered negligible -- yet consider the following example: When last year I was going to publish a scientific article in German, my boss told me "no- body will read it, unless you translate it into English". Doesn't this show that the communication process is less a matter of course than is sometimes supposed, and that labor has to be invested into it as well as into the communicated work itself? Sorry for bringing a new aspect into a "summary" -- it really shouldn't be new, but since only few seem to have got the meaning, I felt I should explain a little. The third maxim caused the most vivid discussions, especially among those who professionally produce and sell software and who (rightfully) asked how they were supposed to earn their living without copyright-protecting laws. David Lawyer, who brought up "the public's right on software", made the proposal that some instance or organisation might distribute software and see that authors got paid for what they produce. I might add that in my country (Fed. Rep. Germany) there *is* an organisation that does just this -- collect money from people who present some copyrighted piece (e.g. of music) in public and distribute that money among the holders of copyrights. They even charge money on empty musicassettes sold -- because somebody might copy something copyrighted onto that cassette. All this shows that simply forbidding all copying of copyrighted information doesn't seem to solve the problem; yet the system certainly is not perfect, nor could it easily be taken over to the SW market. Considering how large a spectrum of opinions showed in the reactions, I feel the discussion was not quite unprofitable -- I have certainly profited from it, and should like to thank everybody who contributed to it. -- Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | "Lasciate ogni speranza, foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | voi chi entrate!" [ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ] | (Dante, Inferno)