Date: 21 Sep 1992 08:45:30 -0800
From: "Michael Stack" <stack@STARNINE.COM>
Subject: File 3--Response to Davis/Piracy (2)

The two responses (CuD 4.43) to James I. Davis's provocative article
--"Software Piracy - The Social Context" (CuD 4..42) -- both make the
common fault of equating whats good for business with that which is
good for society as a whole.  They both seem to view copyright and
patents as a system guaranteeing a right to profit overlooking the
original constitutional intent to "promote the progress of Science and
the useful Arts."

Mr. Davis has difficulty with the way property rights are applied with
regard to software and information in general (as do I or I wouldn't
be writing this), yet both respondents base significant portions of
their counter-arguments upon the very object under contention.  They
use terms like "stealing" and that software/information is "property"
etc.  To be able to accuse someone of stealing or to claim something
as property (and to subsequently grant licenses on how this property
is to be used) implies there exists rights of ownership in the first
place.   The crux of Mr. Davis's article questions this right.  The
respondents by-pass this altogether.  Their articles are but
explanations of the existing order in case we didn't already
understand.

Neither mentions the recent alarming developments in the application
of copyright and patent particularly to software (see the literature
of the League for Programming Freedom or the recent Barrons "Software
Patents Block the Path of Computing Progress" article) which threatens
all software written outside the cubicles of major software
corporations.   The fact that "alls not well in the state of Denmark"
in itself punches large holes in the system the two respondents
defend.

Both belittle the spectre of "police state" raised by Mr. Davis.
Amazingly, this is done within the pages of a publication which has
spotlighted many instances of "police-state" behavior: doors
kicked-in in the early hours of morning, guns drawn, threats,
equipment confiscated (permanently?), "guilty till proved innocent,"
etc.

Some specifics on Mr. Morgan's piece:

--On the one hand you argue "If I pour 4 years of my life into the
development of SnarkleFlex, I DESERVE to profit from it"  but then you
append a caveat which undoes this assertion "(assuming that people
want to purchase/use it)."  Doesn't this condition make your
capitalized assertion self-destruct?  Do you deserve to be rewarded
for your work, yes or no,  or is it to be let dependent on market
caprice?

--You ask "Would you make a copy of Webster's Dictionary and give it
to a friend?" and you sport(!) "Xerox(tm)[ing] your entire printed
library for me..." "...would be just fine, right?"  Yes, it would --
if the library and dictionary were in a readily distributable form and
the copy cost me near nothing i.e. in digital form.  I'd be happy to
give you a copy.   I could give it to anyone.  As to how I'd have a
library in the first place we can discuss (perhaps outside of this
forum).

Michael Goldhaber in his book Reinventing Technology states "Since new
information technology includes easy ways of reproducing information,
the existence of these [intellectual property] laws effectively
curtail the widest possible spread of this new form of wealth."

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253