[12662] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF and the big bad T (tax) word [long]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Wed May 25 21:43:14 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: don.wills@swc.com (Don Wills)
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 14:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: djw@eff.org, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199405251815.OAA16238@eff.org> from "Don Wills" at May 25, 94 01:15:20 pm
> If the latter - Why do we allow book and magazine publishers to charge the
> same or MORE for their products to libraries than they charge to
> individuals? Could it be that they wouldn't sell to them otherwise? Maybe
> we need to force (via regulation) book publishers to provide universal
> access and reduced rates to libraries and schools!
This is apples and oranges. Books are not infrastructure. Please show me
*anything* in any EFF postitions stating we support the notion that the
providers of any kind of commodity, whether it be a service or a product,
should be forced to provide it at reduced cost to anyone. We support
---=> PRESENCE AND AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE <---
Perhaps this is clear enough this time? Sorry to be virtually
loud, but it just doesn't seem to get through for some reason.
Books and magazines are commodities, items bought and sold. They are not
infrastructure. Don't confuse telephone bills or telephones with
*availability of telephone service*. This is a gross Korzybskian error as
bad as mistaking the meal for the menu (or, more accurately, for the
table both are set upon.)
FYI, the reason books and other publications sometimes cost more for
libraries than for individuals is not even vaguely related to the issue at
hand. The reason is because they are copied and used by more people, and
the makers of them depend upon individual sales and royalties therefrom
for their income. This does not hold true of network resources (though it
often does hold true of networkable software, such as MS Word - thus the
existence of site licenses.) By contrast, a constantly connected data
line, like our T1 for instance, does not cost any more or less to use or
provide whether one person or 5 or 15 are using it.
You are very wide of the mark here.
> Don't you folks at EFF understand how ludicrous your position is?
No, but we do understand how ludicrous positions may appear to be by those
who don't understand them, and make unsupported assumptions about what
they mean.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
