Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU!RAMO%AC.DAL.CA
From: RAMO%AC.DAL.CA@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU (Richard Outerbridge)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Copywrongs
Message-ID: <8908181535.AA08568@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 18 Aug 89 14:18:00 GMT
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 128

I sent this to Richard Stallman last week and he suggested I try and publish
it somewhere. This, then, is my first attempt at publication. Comments,
feedback, etc., would be appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why Copyrights Are A Foolish Bleat Against the Laws of Physics

                              or

(Those Who Can Do, Those Who Can't Become Economists)


A Piece of Heresy from Richard Outerbridge
------------------------------------------

In the past we recognized but two forms of existence. Matter and
Energy.  The capitalists, the socialists, and the communists all
squabbled over these.

Then we became aware of a third form. Information. It was very
different from the other two forms, but we didn't really pay much
attention to this. We lumped it in with the rest and the capitalists,
the socialists, and the communists all continued to squabble.

In the discussion which follows we will ignore Socialists. Clearly,
they don't have the cojones to take a real stand one way or the other.

The communist believes that private property is an offensice concept.
Everyone, according to high communist doctrine, must own everything
equally. All well and good until such a time as I wish to eat that
macadamia nut chocolate chip cookie which is sitting in front of me
and chase it down with the last bottle of 1856 Chateau de Bermudez
remaining in the world.

Dealing with the claret is simple enough. Given 1 litre of wine, and 5
billion people presently on the planet, my share amounts to 0.0000002
millilitres. The calculation involved for the cookie may prove
intractable. The calculation involved for almost everything will
likely prove intractable. Solutions are, of course, possible but a
sacrifice of principle to expediency is always involved (and we aren't
all engineers - some of us might object). It seems fairly obvious that
communism flies in the face of the universe which gave birth to it.

Does that mean that capitalism wins be default? Sorry, Mr. Keynes, it
isn't quite that easy. I think a short story might best illustrate my
point here.


If I have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10 information
pellets, and you have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, (and a
gun), you can take all of my matter pellets away and I will have none.
You will then have 10 more matter pellets and I will have 10 less. You
can do the same with my energy pellets. Your gain is my loss. You
can't deprive me of my information pellets though (not without mashing
up my brain). What you can do is persuade me to let you make a copy of
them for yourself. In order to do this you will have to spend one of
your energy pellets on copying costs. If you didn't take my other
pellets, I will have 10 energy pellets, 10 matter pellets, and 10
information pellets.  You will have 9 energy pellets, 10 matter
pellets, and 10 information pellets.

pellet. From my point of view, though, it cost me nothing to let you
copy my information pellets. I can quite happily share my information
pellets equally with everyone (and if I use a chain letter
distribution scheme the demands on my time are negligible).
Information behaves very much like a communist invention (admitedly,
the present day communist states haven't clued in on this yet).


I was brought up to be a capitalist however.  So should I be allowed
to insist that you give me a matter pellet before you can copy my
information pellets? That would be very nice for me indeed.  Have we
finally found a way to avoid the zero-sum game? Can I sell you
something which you are totally free to use as you please and at the
same time retain full ownership of it myself? What is the meaning of
ownership? Doesn't this create the potential for me to attain
near-unlimited wealth? What happenned to the good old Puritan Work
Ethic (or its cousin the Risk Involved in Investment)?

More to the point, how does one go about keeping track of who owns
what information and who they are allowed to share it with (never mind
the problem of checking everyone to see if they have any information
they don't have permission to have)? This seems every bit as
intractable as our previous little problem. Can the forces of
capitalism come up with a practical solution (and we won't pretend the
honour system is practical)?

The answer is an obvious one. What would the world be like if we could
copy Porsche's, Tropical Islands, and Lobster Tails as easily as pages
of information? Could anything other than communism prevail?

Copyright laws are designed to prevent the theft of ideas, but what sort of
theft is it which leaves the victim undiminished?

There will be those who would apply my arguments to movie theatre
owners. Is it not wrong that I should sneak into their building
without paying? Indeed it is. But I should be charged with
tresspassing, and not theft, for I took nothing with me when I left.

I have been a computer analyst and programmer for many years. I am
paid to create information. Information which is needed by those who
hire me.  Information which they can use to help them with their
chosen activities. I am paid matter pellets in direct proportion to
the time I spend in creating the information. If a third party
approaches me and requests a copy of the same information I have
already been paid to create, why should I demand money of this third
party as well? Is this anything less than greed? The dream of getting
something for nothing?


The solution is clear, and the nice thing about it is that everyone
will probably hate it. If we accept the fact that matter pellets and
energy pellets are inherently capitalistic, and information pellets
are inherently communsitic, it should not prove all that difficult to
come up with a new economic philosophy which is in harmony with the
laws of the universe (the laws which really matter - no apologies for
the pun - its the price you pay for reading my stuff). The new
philosophy (let's call it Bimorphism - or name it after me if you want
something more unique - no one in my family has ever left their name
anywhere - except for a rather ordinary crossing in New York).

I have no doubt that a practical application of Bimorphism will be no
walk in the park, but at least those working toward such a goal will
be working with the Universe's grain rather than agin it.

My hat is off to another Richard, Richard Stallman, and to GNU (Gnu's
Not Unix, but also Gnu's Natural to the Universe) for their obvious
realization of most of these observations many years ago.