Article View: comp.sys.atari.st
Article #20966Re: intellectual property and shit
From: Jan T. Kim
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:37
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:37
44 lines
2984 bytes
2984 bytes
In <1992Dec14.203630.16753@nosc.mil> healy@nosc.mil (Mike Healy) writes: >I guess my point is that people do have a need to make a living, and if >they choose to do this by making and selling software, this is a >legitimate activity. I don't see how the fact that someone is making >a profit off software justifies piracy. Such an argument is naive and completely one-sided. It is sometimes made by certain people, but it has not yet shown up in this discussion. However, the fact that one-sidedly justifying piracy is nonsense does not mean that one-sidedly condemning it is the sensible thing to do. I think that both parts, pirates and software marketers, contribute about the same to keeping the vicious circle going. There's little use in one-sidedly blaming either of them. Much rather, both users and programmers need to develop new ways of dealing with each other, and these new ways should get rid of the vicios circle. >If something is overpriced, >don't buy it. Should an author be required to give away his book after >he has made back the "cost"? Or should musicians be denied royalties >on their songs after they have received a certain amount to cover >the cost? How is it different selling a software product? If copyright is supposed to enable authors to get compensation for the effort it took them to produce their stuff, it basically should expire once it did so. For this issue, it matters little how much the compensation actually is. The crucial point is that it ought ot be *limited*, not *infinite*. As long as the compensation one can get from a limited amount of effort is limited, one may more or less reasonably argue that the market will take care of overpricing, i.e. people will buy from less expensive competitors etc. But if, according to the idea of copyrighting software, the holder of a copyright can charge infinitely often for a thing that took a finite effort to create, how can any market mechanism be expected to discriminate between these infinities? Greetinx, Jan +- Jan Kim -- X.400: S=kim;OU=vax;O=mpiz-koeln;P=mpg;A=dbp;C=de -+ | Internet: kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de | | | *----=< hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans >=-----*
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1gjcs8INNk7u@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rrz.uni-koeln.de!not-for-mailReferences:
<Bz3GFp.1LB@sci.kun.nl> <1992Dec14.004749.19378@nosc.mil> <1ghqk2INN1j63@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> <1992Dec14.203630.16753@nosc.mil>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rrz.uni-koeln.de!not-for-mail From: aeg03@rrz.uni-koeln.de (Jan T. Kim) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: intellectual property and shit Date: 15 Dec 1992 02:37:12 +0100 Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne Lines: 44 Message-ID: <1gjcs8INNk7u@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> References: <Bz3GFp.1LB@sci.kun.nl> <1992Dec14.004749.19378@nosc.mil> <1ghqk2INN1j63@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> <1992Dec14.203630.16753@nosc.mil> Reply-To: kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de NNTP-Posting-Host: rs1.rrz.uni-koeln.de