Author: Don Dailey
Date: 17:50:55 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1998 at 15:05:57, Dan Newman wrote: >On July 19, 1998 at 14:47:11, Don Dailey wrote: > >> >>I believe there should be no restrictions on making copies of anything >>that is copyable including music, software books and yes, even IDEAS. >> >>In this society however it may not be feasable since we live in a >>pretty materialistic one. I honor the rules myself, I have signed >>nondisclosure agreements and marketed programs myself. But if I >>wrote the rules I would relax or do away with these restrictions, >>perhaps slowly so as to not disrupt things too much. >> >>Something doesn't seem quite right about considering an idea as >>something you can legally OWN. I understand the reasoning behind >>this and have heard all the arguments. But an idea is something >>that is discovered, not created. And in my opinion ANY idea >>should be in the public domain. >> > >As far as I understand it, ideas can neither be patented nor >copyrighted--they are all public domain. Ideas, theories, >mathematical equations and such are free and can be used by >anyone. It's the implementations of those things that are >given protection. (Hence algorithms shouldn't be patentable >since they are really mathematical expressions, IMHO.) > >The reason for patents and copyrights is not really to >protect individual rights or ownership--though that is their >direct effect--but to encourge people to create stuff in >the first place. If these protections were not there, >the monetary incentive for creation of new things would >be nil. In other words, these protections are really there >for the people on the consuming end. > >>I have no problem with selling anything people will buy. But I >>don't like the artificial restriction of limiting what they can >>do with this product once they have it. I know this is extreme >>but I basically feel this way about patents and copyrights. >>They are all based on the concept of "ownership" of something >>that should be free in my opinion. > >I certainly think it should be OK to make backup copies, or if >you have two machines, to have a copy on each--provided you are >the only user. As long as the copies are only for personal use >I don't see much of a problem--though I think the owners of the >copyright/patent may see otherwise. > >But remember, the copyright and patent are not really there to >protect the owners but to encourge generation of new/improved >products. I think this effect will not be significantly reduced >by people making personal copies of software they've already >bought. Hi Dan, This is the main argument I have heard many times Dan. I guess I'm questioning whether these things actually do encourage the development of new ideas and products. I have little doubt that big corporations would lose interest without these economic incentives but is this a bad thing? What would happen is that they would simply turn to other things. Remember, I'm only talking about not restricting the use of ideas through copyrights, patents or other artificial means, anything else stays the same and people are still encouraged to buy and sell goods and services as they see fit and to the extent they can make a profit doing so. If you look at the public domain softare "market" you will be impressed. People are producing software for the personal pride and fulfillment of it, and the money is a secondary or non-existant issue for them. The quality of this software is incredible too. I suspect without the copy protection laws and illegal copy rules we would still have a plethora of wonderful software to choose from. For example, I am running an operating system that is completely free. It comes bundled with SEVERAL languages included a C compiler, a ton of games including a free chess program, several editors, hundreds of utilities, full networking support and I'm still discovering programs I never knew were there. I found a program the other day I had never noticed, it produces an image of a planet, fractally designed and random each time you run it. It came as part of the operating system distribution and I never knew it was there. It seems superior in every way to any commercial OS I have seen, even including commercial Unix OS's. But's it is public domain and copying it is ENCOURAGED not discouraged. And the strange thing about it is that there are companies making money distributing this OS. At work several groups have purchased the CD's for it. Any company can sell it, but no one is allowed to copyright it or discourage it's distribution. If I don't want to pay for it I can download it from many places or borrow a CD from someone without ever being afraid it's illegal. To me that is about as cool as you can get! The people who work on this OS do it because they LOVE it, and want to have a more powerful OS than what is commercially available. So the only difference these rules have imposed is that people who write this software are not doing it for money, instead they are doing it out of personal pride. In my opinion, this has been a huge benefit to the public and encourage the free flow of ideas and useful products, NOT the other way around. Most of the commercial OS's available DISCOURAGE and protect their ideas jealously with rules and lawyers. They want us to be their loyal children as long as we never grow up. If the same thing happened to the book market do you know what would happen? Since any book would be copied freely, chances are good that companies would spring up to reprint books since most people would not go to the bother to make their own copies unless they wanted electronic copies (which would also proliferate I'm sure.) People would become writers because they love to write, not to make money. I suspect that people would find ways to make money writing anyway and this would not be discouraged as long as it didn't involve burdening the public with laws and rules to get more money out of them. Those who only would write books to make money might find another profession and so we would still benefit from their contribution to society, or they would write part time but focus only on the subjects they loved instead of the ones that made them rich. Go to any book store and you will quickly get sick of seeing books that are obviously written only for money. - Don
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.