RE: More ethics... (long, of course)

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

Kevin wrote...

> Copyright is irrelevant in that 
> situation. The same applies to people writing 
> prospectus documents, annual reports and other 
> one-time or special-purpose or supersedable documents.
> What's the point or value of copyright when the 
> text is not worth stealing and will soon be 
> outdated?  

That's not the point. Your company holds a copyright to that work. They
pay you to do that work because it adds value to the product. If people
could freely steal your documentation and your company's products, your
company would soon go out of business and fire you. 


> Copyright, as a "right" is different in kind from 
> the fundamental rights that people need in order 
> to live in peace and engage in commerce. At some 
> level, even the most uneducated or uninterested 
> people recognize this, which is ONE large reason 
> why so many of them ignore it, and why I suggested 
> that the paradigm is in the process of failing and 
> will be replaced.

So what are we going to replace the current system of intellectual propery
protections? The "hey everybody, lets smoke pot and steal things off the
Internet" paradigm? I mean what are we going to do - stop protecting
intellectual rights. This would devalue ALL intellectual work and remove
ALL incentive. 

Its not going to happen no matter how hard you want it to. 


> There are accredited SCHOOLS that teach people how 
> to open locks without using the keys. Let's arrest 
> all the locksmith instructors.

Its not the same. You and others keep trying to slightly bend the analogy
to get the argument into the desired moral comfy zone.

I am going to say this again, now for the 20th time... Sklyrov provided
not only the instructions, but tools for breaking copyright laws to a
crowd of people who are reknown for committing copyright violations. 

Aiding people to commit a crime is just as illegal as commiting the crime.



> Maybe it works differently where you live, but MY 
> employer wants his customers to have a happy and 
> profitable experience using our product, so he pays 
> me to tell those customers how to do so. We really 
> don't CARE if somebody else tells them the same 
> things in a third-party document... as long as nobody 
> misrepresents...

A copyright allows you to control that information. Misrepresentation is
one of the benefits of a copyright. I encourge you to go duplicate and
illegally distribute copyrighted documentation from other documentation.
You will probably get away with it for a while until somebody with money
becomes angry and has you arrested. 


> Copyright has nothing to do with it. The documents are 
> of no earthly use to anybody who isn't using our 
> products. They will be of MARGINAL use to somebody 
> who buys the next version of our product -- but 
> of course, I'll have produced revised docs by then.
> Nobody in his right mind would want to copy my 
> docs. They're useless without the product.

That is irrelevant. THere are many books that are so stupid the authors
should be shot. But, their works are still protected from unauthorized
distribution, etc.  Just because it isn't useful, does not mean it isn't
protected. 


> Let me just observe that Napster (which I 
> never used -- I'm just not that interested 
> in music...) has been replaced by more 
> peer-to-peer arrangements and the volume of 
> file trading has only increased since Napster 
> took it on the chin.

And its still illegal. 


> By the way, would you like to arrest the various 
> folks who have broken the various PKI encryption 
> algorithms over the years?  Certainly, companies 
> like RSA and others have been considerably 
> inconvenienced when individuals and groups have 
> stood up before cryptography conventions, and in 
> other venues, to announce that they had either 
> finessed or brute-forced the encryption standards 
> of the day.  What sort of torture would you 
> recommend for those people?  

Most of the more savvy hackers aren't stupid enough to get up at
conventions and blab this to the world. They either reveal the issue to
the company first or they merely reveal that they broke the codes - not
the methods used to break those codes. 


> If you leave it lying around in public and somebody 
> figures out the puzzle in which you wrapped it... 
> well, more power to 'em.

COOL - then I will be taking your car this week. Since the locks on it are
merely a puzzle, and you did park it in a public place. Therefore, I have
a God given right to steal it, use it, lend it to friends, and never
return it. Thanks Kevin, you're a pal! Make sure you keep making those
payments on the car - its mine now to enjoy!  

Kevin, your arguement is totally absurd. Just because something is put on
the Internet does not mean you can break it and steal it. 

This is the problem with many Internet technologies these days. The "I
WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE" mentality of the Internet is simply impractical.
 You're seeing a change right now.  If you want goods and services over
the Internet - you have to pay for them. Just as if you went to a store
and purchased a can of tomatoes. 

Even supposed "freeware" usually has restricted usage until you purchase
the product. In any event, you cannot steal the inventor's technology just
because you crack the password he used to protect it. 


> As I suggested in a previous post, the model is 
> changing. The vested interests may in fact 
> prevail, but the tide is against them. People 
> do recognize a difference between physical assault, 
> theft, vandalism, etc. versus ethereal constructs 
> of "intellectual property".

Yes - one can be physically locked the other requires technological locks.


Either way - whether you steal a car or a disk full of  1's and 0's,
stealing, is stealing, is stealing. Just because software and on-line
books are "etherial" does not mean they are free for anybody to take. 

THere is a change afoot. Corporations are banding together and taking a
united front against theives, hackers, and criminals. There will be more
arrests and more jail time for these people. As their should be. We have
laws. If you want to break them - you get punished.

Andrew Plato  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.