Piracy Bests ITAR

[Bruce Murphy]

In message <199602190657.BAA00505 at bb.hks.net>, 
  Mutant wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Alan Horowitz wrote:
> >    Yes, when Mr Anon travels to a beach in Jamaica or in Mombasa, he
> > shouldn't complain when the taxi driver takes him, not to his requested
> > destination, buit some dark alley where Mr Anon gets clunked over the
> > head and his wallet removed. The locals need the money more than Mr
> > rich-tourist-on-vacation Anon.  They're only doing socialist justice,
> > after all.
> > 
> > Property is property. Theft is theft.
> 
> Such absolutism! And an awful analogy (not entirely worthless, but
> not very good either).

True, there is a certain amount of indicision in my mind as to the
value of keeping software valuable through sale, and obtaining it
virtually free of charge. Yes I develop software.

> Has nothing to do with socialism... even works nice in a capitalist
> as in the case where people try the software, decide they like it,
> and then buy it latter when they can afford it. Sidekick and WordStar
> became popular because of this "borrowing".  MS-DOS probably would not
> be so widespread if it weren't pirated.

Uh huh? And you are saying that there were *heaps* of computers out
there which could run MS-DOS which didn't come with it? And how much
more would those companies have made had the products been *forced* to
be sold rather than pirated.

*chuckle*

Of course these days, with M$ having the monopoly over all software on
PC's and Billy being worth what he is, it's a moot point...

<snip>

Intellectual property is all very well to develop, but it should
really be considered a limited resource at any point in time, and as
such be ownership restricted in much the same way as natural resources
are in Oz.

Mining licenses are only kept where the owner can show a certain
amount of development. In the same way patents of "intellectual" or
developing technology should be granted under a license to develop
principle only. (with the option to lose)

I'm not saying that intellectual property should come any more under
the banner of Big Sibling[1], but the existing regulatory bodies
should probably be forced to adopt these measures.

[1] This might be in an archive by the time that the CDA Mk II comes
out with the politically correct clauses.[2]
[2] I'm not laughing. My country's regulatory body sat this week to
start on our 'net legislational recommendations. I hope to hell you
people get your CDA sorted out before our lot uses it as a precedent.
--
Packrat (BSc/BE;COSO;Wombat Admin)
Nihil illegitemi carborvndvm.