Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!rwwetmore From: rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: lotus chairman makes 26 million Message-ID: <18724@watmath.waterloo.edu> Date: 9 May 88 16:45:50 GMT References: <380@motbos.UUCP> <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <11334@mimsy.UUCP> <1606@looking.UUCP> <18662@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1614@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 54 In article <1614@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <18662@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >> ... a long analogy about "darwinist capitalism" >> >>There is no morality in nature or a capitalist economy ... except survival >>ie it is immoral not to survive (it is also dangerous to your health :-). >> >This is pretty high on the silly analogies list, Ross. I thought it was at about the same tenor as the earlier posting :-). >Capitalism is >fundamentally based on the concept of private property. A system without >a moral concept of property (ie. one where property is protected only through >loyalty and strong weapons) can't have capitalism. In the end property is always protected by strong weapons - you can call it a 'police' force or a 'military' force, however I don't know any (capitalist == competitive) society that doesn't have such referees to back up the current 'morality' of their position. >The big debate in this forum centers in non-material property, such as >software. The key point is that non-material property in the form of ideas cannot be controlled unless you institute mind control. It is only the tangible material products of those ideas that you stand a chance of controlling. However, I would not like to live in a society 50 years from now, where every time I turned an idea into a product I was sued for copyright because every idea anyone ever had was recorded and every idea ever produced could be traced back to components of at least a million predecessors. >To me, a person's creations are the truest form of personal property. While >one might argue that one owns a piece of land only through social >conventions, ownership and control of one's own thoughts and mental creations >is indisputable -- until you publish them, and then that ownership needs laws >to protect it. Once you transmit a idea, it no longer belongs to you. Anyone can think it. I refuse to constrain my thoughts just because you thought them at some prior point in time. Put another way, I refuse to let you claim exclusive ownership on any thoughts. >So to me, software is a more true form of property than land! It is not >proper to do something with somebody else's property without their >permission. And when you pay for the right to use software, you don't >get permission to copy it and give it away. I am not against copyright protection of software or any other creative efforts. My point is that this is *not* a simple black and white picture, and the whole concept of intellectual property is an incredible minefield. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.waterloo.edu Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore