RE: A Question of Ethics (new thread)

["Glenn Maxey" <glenn -dot- maxey -at- voyanttech -dot- com>]

The discussions about copyright has been enlightening. Here's something
that we tend to forget.

Publishers of articles/magazines/newspapers/music/movies seem to have no
problems when:

(1) I pick-up and read some else's discarded magazine, newspaper, or
paperback. In fact, I regular rummage through the recycle bin at the bus
station to get the movie schedule for the weekend. I didn't pay for the
subscription.

(2) I record movies or music off of the airwaves. I didn't pay to have
them blast these electromagnetic radio waves through my home.

(3) I go to my local video store and rent movies. I didn't pay price at
a theatre.

(4) I loan or give a paperback/CD/video to someone else after I have
enjoyed it. They didn't pay a thing.

(5) I go to a used music/bookstore to get some music for a cheaper
price... sometimes it is out of print and this is the only way. Most of
the price of the CD went to the previous owner; the rest went to the
store to pay for the storage and service.

(6) I sell my music/books/videos/magazines at a garage sale.

(7) I borrow music/books/videos/magazines from friends.

(8) I go to the library and access/checkout the same information for
free.


I realize that in some cases (like the video store and cable
television), revenues do go back through channels to eventually make it
back to the copyright holder. In the case of recording off of the
broadcast airways, advertising revenue supposedly makes it eventually to
the copyright holder. However, I don't record the ads and zap the
commercials. Am I stealing?

When I do something other than purchase copyright material -- like
checkout from the public library or borrowing from a friend --, am I
stealing?

If the public libraries had more funding, they would HAVE all such
copyrighted material available for free to all tax paying citizens (and
library-card carrying patrons.) You can get it FOR FREE today.

This is a good thing in my books.

Everybody is getting all holy about profits and revenue. True, this is
the incentive for many people to undertake things.

However, when we step back and objectively view the "industry", we'll
see that the copyright rarely is a financial benefit to the creator
(although it often is to the copyright holder, a non-breathing entity). 

(1) Bands make their bread-and-butter off of touring and live concerts,
and only after _years_ in the business off of album royalties.

(2) Best-selling authors make their bread-and-butter off of book
signings, personal appearances, selling the movie rights, and paying
their dues on a whole bunch of early novels. Only after _years_ of
best-sellers do they eventually get into the realm of making their money
there.

In both of these cases, it is in the band's and the author's best
interest to make their works in some way more accessible, regardless of
whether or not they earned direct renumeration from it. Their goal is to
become a household word -- feel free to read your cousin's copy of that
one novel or to download some old cut from the band --, because this
inspires future consumer activity in the form of attending concerts,
attending personal appearances, or outright purchasing the
hot-off-the-presses releases.

The music industry made a _major_ mistake in pursuing Napster the way
they did. Instead, the message that they should have received was that
"there is a demand." People would have paid if there would have been a
mechanism to do so at reasonable prices (micro-payments) and if true
access to EVERYTHING were available.

This is true of all copyright material -- software, movie, music, books,
articles. People will pay if their is a reasonable mechanism to do so.

(As a total aside, the lawyers defending Napster missed one critical
technical point that should have turned the case over. One of the
reasons that we have been allowed to record off of broadcast airwaves
was that the quality of the recording was never going to be as good as
the original album or CD due to the bandwidth limitations of the
broadcast itself. The same argument applies to Napster which worked off
of compressed MP3 files, which were not nearly the same in quality as
the original CD version. In terms of  books, the same rules could apply,
because reading an online version does not equal the quality in my mind
of the smell and feel of a new book... or even an old book.)


========

Now in the realm of software, I believe that

(1) Most general purpose, high-volume software is too expensive. The
operating system or word-processor is just a tool, like a screw-driver
in my toolbox. Sure, I'll pay a reasonable fee to have that tool
available with my other tools. I should be using these tools to create
bigger and better things. Alas, the makers of the screw-driver take
perverse marketing pains to give new meanings to the terms screw,
screwer, and screwee in this screw-driver scenerio. Why do I pay so much
for things that their legalizese don't even guarantee as being suitable?


(2) Libraries for the source code are the future.

If you want tested and compiled code that will run on your machine, you
can pay a fee. No problem. Royalties will go to all contributors in
proportion to their contribution.

If the software doesn't do exactly what you need it to do, you can
check-out the source-code (for free or at a nominal library usage fee)
just like you can a book from the library. You can figure out how it
works. If you make an improvement, you have can check it back in and
eventually be renumerated for your efforts. We've already got source
code management systems that can track such multi-branch trees.

Others can benefit from your efforts. A tiered distribution process
could make your improvement available for others in (a) source code, (b)
compiled-but-untested executable, (c) compiled-tested executable, and
(d) compiled-tested-and-certified executable. Users pay more for more
reliability. 

The key is that revenue can make it back to contributors in a more
direct fashion.

There are lots of revenue schemes that can be created.

========

The point is that it is possible to make lots of money AND have more
reliable software in a more OPEN environment, just like it is possible
now to make money by broadcasting music/movies over the airwaves or by
creating demand for authors/bands through easier access to their works.
(If the fee is reasonable -- although micro --, users will pay.)

The reality for me is that without more openness, we limit our
greatness.

Openness creates demand which gives the potential for greater revenue.

Closed and proprietary systems such as Windows and Adobe's Publishing
system only cause problems and protect revenues for a few. 

Glenn Maxey
Voyant Technologies, Inc.
Tel. +1 303.223.5164
Fax. +1 303.223.5275
glenn -dot- maxey -at- voyanttech -dot- 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.