Re: Design principles and ethics

[Bas Wijnen]

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:48:24PM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > The infrastructure I was talking about is internet and broadband
> > connections.
> 
> Then you voluntarily ignore a very crucial part of the infrastructure.
> You just can't say ``the part of the infrastructre I'm OK to consider
> will cost zero''.

I wasn't saying the infrastructure cost zero at all.  I was saying that to
people, the cost of copying is often zero, because the infrastructure they
need for it (that's internet and a connection to it) is there anyway.

> I'm also thinking that putting a penalty on copying is bad. But I also
> think it is the right of the author (that's why it is called copyright)
> to put that penalty. If you don't want to suffer the penalty, avoid his
> work.

You're accepting the idea that an author has a natural right to control his
work, even if he publishes it.  I don't accept that.  Copyright (that is, the
exclusive right to make copies) was given to authors _only_ because it served
society.  Not because it was the right thing in itself, not because they
deserve the money.  No, only because society would be better off with more
production, and this is a way to stimulate it.  Now that it doesn't actually
seem to work to fulfil that goal, I say we should abandon copyright.  We
probably want something else in its place.  I'm no expert in that, and leave
it to others to determine what that should be.  But copyright is just not a
thing I want to have.  To be more specific: I don't want authors to have
control over their work, if they choose to release it.  If the thing is made
public, then I should be allowed to do what I want with it, including copying
and using it to make derivatives.

> Again, no need to force free publication. I bet some parents and schools
> will just prefer the free (as in free beer) manual, and many professors
> will like that it is free (as in free speech) when they need to derivate
> from it.

Sure.  But if copyright is just wrong in itself, and doesn't actually function
well either, then it should be dropped.  No need to take people's freedom
away.  Note that I'm not "forcing free publication".  I'm just not giving
authors the right to enslave their readers.  As they currently have that
right, it may feel (also to them) as "forcing freedom".  But fundamentally, I
don't agree that it is.

> No need to fight evil, just make something good.

Making good things is always good. :-)  But if evil is written in the law,
then the law should be fixed, too.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature