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