🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6v8nff$e5k$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>In <6v6a4o$c9h$1@Mercury.mcs.net> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>>software) They are simply employees of large companies, who are the ones
>>>to own the copyrights/patents etc.
>
>>That doesn't follow.  The employees work for pay; the pay is given
>>with the expectation of being able to recover the cost and perhaps
>>make a profit by being able to limit distribution of copies to the
>>people who pay some reasonable amount for them (reasonable having
>>the usual meaning between buyer and seller).  

>But is is not the producer of the product who is profiting from that
>product and controlling the rights to that product. The software writer
>is the producer, not the company.

Errr, no.  The employer is the producer.  If the employee wants to
produce something of his own he shouldn't be accepting wages from
someone else.  At least in the U.S. a "work done for hire" belongs
entirely to the entity that pays to have it done.

>So, if it is the producer who you
>would like to see profit, patents and copyrights should be disallowed
>for comapnies, but should only be holdable by individuals who could
>prove that it was they who produced the goods.

Why is that?  If they want to do something as individuals nothing
is stopping them.  Unless they would like to be paid by someone else.

>That is my point.
>You defend copyright and patents on the basis that the producer should
>be able to profit from his/her labours, and then allow the profit to go
>to people who never engaged in that labour.
>Your emotive defence of copyright is thus flawed.

Are you saying that you should never be able to hire anyone to
help with something without giving them ownership of the final
product?

>>This should be irrelevant.  If you want to use someone else's work you
>>should agree to their terms or find an alternative.  The more important
>>issue is that we should not be forced to use any single work in order
>>to interoperate with anything else.  Interchange standards should be
>>open in all cases and competition would take care of everything else.
>
>Fine. so why should the state get involved and force certain conditions
>on the contract? Patent and copyright law are conditions forced on the
>interactions by the state which I or the producer have no control over.
>In particular, the consumer is disadvantaged by these extraneous terms.

I'll agree in the rare cases where there is only one way to do something
or an effective monopoly is granted by standards definitions.  In all
normal cases you are perfectly free to buy or create an alternative
and in no way affected by any artificial conditions granted by
patents or copyrights.  It is the artifact of monopoly that gives
the consumer a disadvantage, not the ability of a producer to control
any particular thing he has created.  

>>>There is loads of evidence that the refusal of society to strike a
>>>harder bargain (eg release of source code as a condition for copyright
>>>or patent protection) is vastly damaging to society. (see the Year 2000
>>>mess as an example).
>
>>Perhaps, but that is a separate issue. 
>
>Sorry, that is the issue being discussed here.

No.  Source availability is entirely different from copyright or
patent protection.  Any vendor wishing to do so can make source
available under whatever licensing terms make sense to the buyer
and seller. 

  Les Mikesell
    les@mcs.com