copyright outdated (Re: US to Ease Crypto Export)

[T Bruce Tober]

In message <199807081228.NAA16425@server.eternity.org>, Adam Back
<aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes
>
>Bruce Tober writes:
>> It is my view that existing laws on theft are outdated. It's so easy to
>> steal or shop lift that such laws should be abandoned because I prefer
>> to steal food and money and other things. It saves me having to work and
>> pay for them.
>
>Hmm, but you are talking about tangible physical items, 

Any intellectual property is also tangible and in many cases physical,
at least at some point in its creation. Not that that has anything to do
with the issue at hand, i.e. the theft of a person's income/property.

>which cost
>someone money to reproduce.  

Are you trying to tell me it costs me nothing to write the articles and
book I've spent my life writing? Fine, I'll send you my phone, hardware,
software, travel, etc. bills for you to pay.

>Taking their goods without paying for
>them would result in an immediate and direct loss on a per item basis
>to the producer. 

As it does in the case of you stealing my work. I own the copyright in
almost everything I write and therefore once you steal it I can't resell
it to anyone else. Once you steal something the publisher holds
copyright in he loses advertising revenue which means he'll claim he can
only pay me less than the crap fees he already gets away with.

In other words my income (and I'm speaking for most writers and other
"artists" protected by copyright) goes from crap to shit, thank you very
much.

> In addition if you were to persist in this
>occupation, it seems highly likely that you would be caught and
>punished.

Hopefully the same will happen to those who continually steal
copyrighted materials.

>Reproduction of information in electronic form is essentially free, it

Bullshit Adam. You know better. I know you know better. How much do you
think it cost me in telephone calls both to interview you and to
exchange information with you for the various articles I've probed your
brain on, not to mention the petrol and time costs of your visit here to
help with my researching another article.

You also know it or you'd not have asked my permission to, and run my
notice of copyright on the PGP article on your site (or which used to
be).

>doesn't cost the producer anything if someone makes an extra
>electronic copy.  

It costs him advertising revenue which costs me as pointed out above.

>Moreover individuals can reproduce and distribute,
>or publish information highly anonymously, and with close to zero risk
>of being caught, 

Ever try copying a book, ever try making 30-50-100 copies of a 3 page
article. It's very expensive and very time consuming and very illegal.

>With widespread censorship resistant publishing ability in the hands
>of the individual, 

Care to translate that? I can't parse it.

>it is simply an observation of reality that
>individuals can publish what they want, including reproducing other
>peoples publications.

Correct except for that last phrase. You can not legally reproduce
other's work without their permission. Even netiquette says an e-mail is
personal property of the writer and not to be publicly posted or
published, similarly there was a case last year wherein the owner of
some letters from some famous person tried to publish or exhibit them
for money and was fined for doing so and/or prohibited from doing so.

>Views on this vary.  Your reaction appears to be that you don't like
>this observation of reality.  

It may be your reality, it's not mine nor is it the legal reality.

>Mine is that I think it is a good thing
>for the individual.

Mine is that when I'm skint it's a good thing for me to steal food.
Doesn't mean I or you, have the legal right to do so.

>That you don't like it should not be that surprising: you are a
>journalist selling your articles to publishers.  

Nothing wrong with that imho.

>One presumes members of guilds didn't like it too much when secret
>guild information leaked, and that priests jealously monopolising
>interpretation of bibles written in Latin didn't like it too much when
>english translations appeared, and when printing presses allowed mass
>reproduction and dissemination of said information.

My first editor drilled it into my head never to assume anything. I
don't know how they thought of those things.

>All three trends are steps forwards in empowering the individual my
>view.

Perhaps.

>Laws which are not enforceable, and which fly against gravity are kind
>of pointless and annoying, and I think in the long term are doomed to
>be overtaken by reality.

When the reality is that we live in a world in which socialist economics
prevail or that publishers pay writers for their work even though the
publishers give it away for free, then I'll agree. Of course on the
other hand you could have all your reading material written by wannabes
who'll do it simply for the "glory". As Johnson said, "Anyone who writes
for free is a dunderhead," or words to that effect, which has more
recently been revised to read, anyone who writes for free is usually not
worth reading nor trustworthy in his information.

>Copyright is only a current societal convention, it will likely change
>in the future.

Very likely, but then so had "artists'" compensation systems better
change first.

tbt -- Whose book on Net security issues and solutions for SMEs is now
                               available from 
<http://www.bloor.co.uk/prodserv/html/bloor_research_-_internet_secu.html>

-- 
|Bruce Tober, <octobersdad@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk>   |
|Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Arts,   |
|       Business, etc. Also website content consultancy and development.     |