[8385] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
RE: Been reading a book (dangerous thing to do)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bayardo Alvarez)
Tue Nov 16 22:51:28 1993
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 22:54:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bayardo Alvarez" <balvarez@mason1.gmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 21:45:27 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Bayardo Alvarez" <balvarez@mason1.gmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc:
BCc:
Subject: RE: Been reading a book (dangerous thing to do)
X-NUPop-Charset: IBM 8-Bit
In message Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:19:48 EST,
"Russell Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:
> [ Why is it that I'm constantly arguing economics on com-priv? ]
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1993 01:35:44 -0500 (EST), "Bayardo Alvarez"
> <balvarez@mason1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>> In message Sun, 14 Nov 1993 00:02:37 EST,
>> "Russell Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:
>>
>> > One ramification of the Economics Lesson above is that when you
>> > force people to make uneconomic decisions (e.g. tariffs, price
>> > fixing, subsidization, etc), society is poorer in the aggregate.
>> > Of course what usually happens is that *some* people are made richer,
>> > and everyone else is made even *more* poorer.
>> >
>> > For example, proprietary software (or proprietary information, e.g.
>> > page numbers) makes some people richer. But if the software was
>> > freely copyable, then the people who *had* been paying for the
>> > software would still have their wealth.
>>
>>
>> You mention subsidization as an uneconomic decision people have to
>> make. How else would free software be developed but by subsidizing?
>>
>
> You should have noticed that I said "...or for the creatively
> challenged, taxes". Ask Brad Cox for a copy of his article "What if
> there is a silver bullet and the competition gets it first?".
Taxes for developing software? I believe this has already happened, but
isn't this subsidizing? Brad's article talks in part about metered
freely-copyable software, where users pay the authors or developers for
usage, and not for the copy. I found no relation to subsidizing software or
taxing.
>> It is fallacious to believe that "*some* people are made richer, and
>> everyone else is made even *more* poorer".
>>
>
> I don't understand this comment. When you coercively transfer wealth
> from one party to another, it's a negative-sum game, because the
> coercion takes resources.
>
> If freely-copyable software can be produced by the market, then we
> are foolish as a society to protect software as if it were scarce.
No one is being coerced to buy software if they don't want to use it, users
buy software they think they will need or use. Many times you feel cheated
after you try to install or run software you buy because it does not run
as you expected, or you couldn't configure it right, or it does not
communicate with your other applications. But the same risk applies to
other goods in the market. When you exchange money for a good, it is
because you think the benefits the good will provide are more than the
amount of money you are giving. What happens after the exchange is a
different story.
But my point is not to defend that software should be copyrighted and users
should pay for obtaining a copy, unfortunately it's the law. One of my
reasons for participating in this discussion is to come up with other ideas
on how to pay the developer for the work she/he has done, and to allow the
user to decide if the software is worth buying or not without breaking the
law.
Freely-copyable software that can be metered an billed sounds like a good
solution, beneficial for both users and developers as well. Manufacturers
would work hard on making software easily installable, configurable,
friendly and resource-efficient because more people would use it. And the
user would have the choice of simply deleting the software if she/he does
not like it. Of course there are many obstacles as to how to implement it
and make it as transparent as possible to the user.
> Before anyone (continues to) bray that I'm an ignorant jackass, let me
> say that after two years of running Crynwr Software, I have no debt.
Sorry, I don't recall questioning or insulting your intellect, I was just
challenging your point of view because mine is different.
>> I recognize that the current methods to ensure software copyrights are
>> cumbersome and confusing, but turning around and revoking these
>> rights can only be detrimental. Let's instead devise the mechanisms
>> to make software accessible to more users, and adherence to owner
>> rights easier and clearer.
>
> You assert this, but you present no persuasive evidence.
I should have said that the current methods to ensure developers are payed
for their efforts are cumbersome and confusing (copyrights), but turning
around and revoking these rights can only be detrimental.
I have no evidence of what would happen if copyrights were revoked and
developers were not payed for their work, but I doubt Computer Associates,
Banyan, Microsoft, Novell or Lotus would stick around much longer. I would
consider this a setback to technology.
By the way, talking about all this brings a question. It seems to me that
the United States produces the largest percentage of software in the world
market. Is there a relation between this, the current copyright laws and
how they are enforced in the U.S. compared to other countries? (I probably
read this somewhere else). I hope readers stuck long enough to read it,
otherwise I'll post it again tomorrow.
|| Bayardo Alvarez George Mason University ||
|| balvarez@gmu.edu Telecommunications Program ||
