🚀 go-pugleaf

michael egan wrote:
> 
> Clifton Royston <clif...@lava.net> wrote in article
> <5rr70k$k...@mochi.lava.net>...
> 
> (more newsgroups whacked)
> > <several groups rudely snecked>
> >
> > CharlieK (Char...@concentric.net) wrote:
> > : sinphil@therestofthe, world.com wrote:
> > : >         If it hadn't occurred to you this is the INTER-net and the
> year in
> > : > which your government began to turn knowledge into property is only
> > : > relevant to your country.
> >
> > Actually, the US Constitution was just copying a concept that was
> > previously becoming widely recognized as important in European
> > countries, and separating it from the earlier concept that a *monarch*
> > had to grant these special rights to inventors or authors.
> 
> In some respects, a useful concept.  However, even though the
> original facts associated with the opinion were wrong, the point
> is well made that at one time in history, there was no concept of
> intellectual property as such.
> 
> > : > For the rest of the world.  Our world, it has
> > : > only begun in the last 100 years and only really hit in the last ten
> or
> > : > 15, as one by one our leaders are blackmailed and cajoled into
> denying
> > : > their citizens free access to knowledge.
> 
> My main point of concern here is that certain groups of people
> will not be able to access knowledge that they will need to have
> in the high-information world of the future, because they
> can't afford the software.  Do people really expect them
> to stand idly by and settle for second rate lives
> because they don't have the money?  From what
> I've seen of overseas piracy statistics, it would
> seem that countries such as Russia and China are going
> to have the software, whether they can afford to buy
> it or not.
> 
> > If you have knowledge, *nothing* stops you from giving it away.
> 
> Excellent point, although getting people to pay attention is another
> question.
> 
> > What is being claimed is that you have no right to *steal* information
> > from someone who originated it and who assigns some value to it.
> 
> A curious sort of theft, considering that the person it is copied
> or learned from still retains his copy.  Aren't people information
> systems?   Couldn't
> someone memorize the source code for a small program?  Is
> that an infringment, also?  Or does it only become one when it
> is written on paper, or in silicon?  And would it be theft of a
> car if one were to use machine parts, sheet metal, etc. to build
> a replica of a '97 Camaro?
> 
> > Without protection of copyright, no author or artist in software,
> > literature, or other media, would be able to make a living from their
> > work.
> 
> And this is a valid point - it would be very difficult.  However,
> 99% of writers, artists, musicians do not make a living
> at it anyway.
> 
> Therefore, if you wish these activities to
> > proceed, society must provide a way for people to make a living at
> > them.  Hence copyrights, patents, etc.
> 
> But society does not provide a way for 99% of the creative
> people to make a living at it.  There's a lot of
> tremendous talent out there that doesn't get hired.  As
> far as this relates to software, am I wrong in pointing
> out that the individual programmer is a rare bird these
> days?  Most are working for large corporations, aren't they?
> This doesn't encourage individual initiative a lot, does it?
> 
> > : >   If you could ask Isaac Newton or Albert
> > : > Einstein how much money they hoped to make out of their discoveries
> would
> > : > you?
> 
> (A good rebuttal of this statement follows.)
> 
> > So far, you're 0 for 2.
> >   -- Clifton
> 
> However, I would ask this.  How much money did Emily Dickenson
> want to make from her poetry?  And how many poets, not
> counting money earned from teaching as professors, actually
> make their living from poetry?
> Answers - none and hardly any.  When it come to the artistic
> impulse, money is often the last thought of the artist, and
> certainly cannot be the first.
> My motive behind all this talk is to point out that there are many
> sides to this group of issues known as intellectual property
> and they involve cultural differences, matters of survival, and
> the role of the creative person in society.  I don't pretend
> to have the answers but many people, consumers and creators,
> are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs and the
> proposals to fix them.
> 
>                                      Sincerely, Michael Egan
> 
> 
> 
> > --
> >     Clifton Royston   --  President, LavaNet Inc.  --  clif...@lava.net
> > Grosvenor Center .. Makai Tower, #1590 .. 733 Bishop St. .. Honolulu HI
> 96813
> >      Phone: +1 808 545-LAVA (545-5282)   Auto-info email: in...@lava.net
> >

One could construe a financial hardship causing a lack of access to
information as discriminatory.

Also, back in CPM days, gold old Wordstar became king of the hill not
because it racked up the most sales, but because it was the most copied
software ever. Exposure to millions of unauthorized copies made buyers
out of many other people who, once they used it, could afford to and
wanted to buy it for the latest versions, support and manuals, etc.
Software piracy is a bunch of hogwash. Only people who are truly
dedicated hackers and others who literally can't afford the software go
thru the trouble and hassle to pirate software. Usually its more of a
pain than anything else. How many times have you downloaded software for
hours only to find it didn't work? How many times have people gotten
dependent on a piece of software they didn't buy only to get stuck later
when they had a problem? When I can afford a piece of software, I go buy
it. Having become a use of an unauthorized piece of software makes me a
buyer when the times are good financially. Prior to that, I wouldn't
have been a customer anyway. No money. Another proof of this is that
people are making money selling shareware...please pay me someday if you
like my software...and many people do. Of course, I am addressing the
unauthorized use of software by individuals, not companies or communist
countries.

Libera Lex
Under the American Flag of PEace
Title 4 USC 1