🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <185@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>, meadors@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Tony Meadors) writes:
> In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) 

[*** That's me! ***]

> writes:
> >
> >What we should really do
> >is ban the copyright of software altogether.  Over the past few years I have
> >seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability.  I know many 

[ stuff deleted ]

>   The primary difference that the engineering of software brings 
> is in how easily it may be copied and used without remnumeration
> to its creators/owners. Some argue that it can't be controlled. You
> take the stance that it shouldn't...presumably even if could be 
> easily controlled. Is that right?
> 

My original article was in reponse to another and was presenting an extremist
viewpoint to get people thinking.  Your question deserves an answer.  I really
can't say what would have been if things had been different.  I do know that I
regularly buy books that I could photocopy for much less money (and I'm not so
rich that the time I would spend matters).  However even if illegal distribution
was not such a problem I think we might still be suffering.  What I think is
more sensible than disallowing the copyright of software altogether is to 
make a new kind of law for software that is more appropriate.  For example the
copyright of books lasts for 25 years after the author's death (if I remember
correctly).  It is innapropriate to carry this kind of time scale over to 
computer software - five years would be far more reasonable.  One thing that
really pisses me off is that companys retain their copyrights to old versions
of their products and won't even sell them any more.  I also think
we should weaken the terms of what software copyright means.  We should
certainly not allow "look and feel".  The human motor system is geared to
having one procedure only for each function.  When my mind says "delete",
my hands act - they don't ask me if I'm running A's product or B's product.
I also think that all interfaces that define a product should be public
domain - so if I want to produce a product with exactly the same functionality
but written independently, from the interface specifications, then I should be
free to (actually I think this is already the case - it just hasn't been
tested in court).  I don't know all the answers - I just think we could do
a better job if we put our minds to it and stand up to these capitalists.
With regard to how programmers should be renumerated - I ask you - what 
proportion of programmers are providing off the shelf products?
Precious few and even these could be rewarded by some alternative scheme 
(e.g. a tax on hardware).  Now don't start criticising me for suggesting this
tax - its just an EXAMPLE of what we could consider doing and it may not even
be necessary.  We may find people writing the "off the shelf" stuff for exactly
the same reasons we have mathematical proofs being developed - personal pride.
And also if the copyright law is merely weakened as I suggested above then 
companys may still be able to provide the stuff and make a profit.