Re: Asimov Site

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <rVjq5.516$J91.65599@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
 
> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
> news:8ob3eo$k1$1@merope.saaf.se...
>> In article <9qQp5.271$J91.36493@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
>> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
>>> news:8o80ah$jcq$1@merope.saaf.se...
>>>
>>>> It becomes particularly pathetic when people argue about ownership of
>>>> stuff which no longer have any value.
>>>
>>> That vintage software has no value is, of course, the premise of those
>>> who argue that they should have unfettered access to it.  But if it has
>>> no intrinsic value, then why do people want it?
>>
>> Because they find some personal value in it?  Some people are also
>> collectors, and collect things most other people find worthless.
> 
> So you agree that vintage software has value on some level.  Good start!
> 
>>> If it has no monetary value, why are people willing to pay money for it
>>> on eBay and in other venues.
>>
>> If it has monetary value, why isn't it for sale anymore from the
>> copyright owner?
> 
> You didn't answer my question,
 
I didn't think you expected answers to a rethorical question.  But
since you do, I'll just state the obvious: if something has no value
for anyone, then of course nobody wants it!
 
Now, I'll ask you a question back: if something has value for
someone, does that mean one always must pay for it?  Consider for
instance air: it's extremely valuable to you - without it woul would
die in a few minutes.  Now, when are you going to start paying for
the privilege to breathe?
 
> but I will answer yours.  The cost of reproduction and marketing may
> have exceeded the expected return.
 
Which means the product then has a NEGATIVE value: you lose money if
you sell it....
 
However, there are other options, if marketing and reproduction becomes
too expensive: release the product as shareware!  This cuts the marketing
and reproduction costs to nearly zero, yet it'll bring some income.  At
least you provide the honest user with a way to pay, if he decides he
likes the product so much that he wants to buy it.  What's the excuse
for not even doing that, if you think the product has any value?
 
> But whatever the reason, it doesn't matter.  Copyright confers the exclusive
> right to make copies, regardless of the value of the copyrighted work.
 
....yes .... (yawn) ..... anything else you want to say that we already know?
 
>>> Besides, I have plenty of things around my house which I treasure, which
>>> have no value to the rest of the universe.  However they are mine, and
>>> just because they are truely valueless does not divest me of ownership.
>>
>> Would you object a lot of someone made copies of them?  Such copies may
>> exist more than you're aware of -- for instance on photos your friends
>> did snap in your home....
>>
>> Personal value is a whole different matter -- as you say it means
>> something has value only to one or a few people.  There would be no
>> point in copyrighting such a value because others have little
>> interest in getting copies of e.g. your personal items.
> 
> In fact, unpublished works such as photographs, personal letters and
> diaries are *automatically* covered by copyright.  Courts routinely
> uphold those copyrights.
 
Are you saying I can be sued for having some pircures in my photo album
from, say, a party at someone else's place?
 
Perhaps I can -- in the US, where people are crazy about suing each other
for every little silly reason.
 
Sometimes this leads to some weird effects.  Some years ago, viewing
total solar eclipses were discussed in sci.astro.  It's a well-known
fact among sky watchers that it's completely harmless to view the
totally eclipsed sun with the unprotected eye.  However, at one
occasion, an eye doctor appeared in the discussion,and he didn't want
to agree with that.  So we asked him for evidence that the totally
eclipsed sun could harm the eye in any way, or for any cases where
people had got their vision permanently damaged from viewing the
totally eclipsed sun.  He tried at first, but all the cases he
brought up was about people who had too carelessly watched the
PARTIALLY eclipsed sun (which indeed can be dangerous).  Then he
started to become evasive.  Finally he admitted that he just had to
advice against viewing the sun at any time, including when it's in
total eclipse, because otherwise he might risk being sued by some
patient....
 
Just another example that fear makes sensible-ness go away....
 
>> And such values are next to impossible to insure -- if you cannot
>> show to the insurance company that something has value not only for
>> you but also for people in general, insurance companies are usually
>> uninterested in insuring that value.
> 
> But your original statement was that "[i]t becomes particularly pathetic
> when people argue about ownership of stuff which no longer h[as] any value."
> Now you in effect agree that there *is* such a thing as personal value, but
> that it is uninsurable.
 
OK -- I agree to re-phrase it as:
 
"[i]t becomes particularly pathetic when people argue about MAKING COPIES
of stuff which no longer h[as] any COMMERCIAL value."
 
 
> Kind of a segue, but I'll go with it for a moment.  Insurance is not a
> particularly good index of value, but is more about risk spreading.  For
> example, you may have a very nice house in a flood plain.  Flood insurance
> for this house may be unobtainable.  This doesn't reflect on the value of
> the house, only that the underwriters are unable to spread the risk enough
> to justify entering into an insurance agreement.
 
That's another issue -- however suppose I was able to find an insurance
company willing to insure that house.  I would probably have to pay a quite
high insurance fee because of the high risk -- but if I'm willing to do that,
and if that insurance company is willing to insure it, the next question
pops up: if a flood actually does destroy that house, what amount of money
will I get from the insurance company?  THAT amount is a good indicator
of the value of the house.
 
The reason insurance companies are reluctant to insure "personal
values" aren't that they're particularly risk prone (if you're
visited by a burglar, he is likely to leave that stuff alone because
it has no value to him.  If your house burns up though, it'll be
destroyed of course -- but so will other stuff which also has
monetary value), but simply because "personal value" cannot be
converted to monetary value.  Saying something is "priceless" doesn't
imply it's worth an infinite amount of money -- instead it implies
its value cannot be assigned any monetary value: if it's detroyed,
then money cannot replace it.
 
>>>> So the next time you're out hiking somewhere, and you want to pick up
>>>> a stick or a stone -- stop!  Do you really have the right to steal
>>>> stuff that's not yours?  Shouldn't you ask the landowner for permission
>>>> before you pick it up?
>>>
>>> First of all, if its not your land, you are trespassing.  You should
>>> have asked first for permission even to enter.
>>
>> Perhaps in your so-called "free" country, but not in my country!
>> Here we have an "everybody's right", which means anyone is allowed to
>> enter the land of others, if they obey a few rules which can be
>> summarized as "don't disturb" (e.g. don't enter too close to the
>> living quarters of others) and "don't destroy" (e.g. don't enter a
>> farmer's crop field).  This "everybody's right" applies only to
>> indoviduals or to small groups of people.  We've had it for
>> centuries, and it works out really well.  It benefits landowners too,
>> because they too are allowed to enter the land of other landowners,
>> without having to ask for permission first.
> 
> The only difference is that in Sweden the line is drawn at a slightly
> different point.
 
The difference isn't that slight: it means the difference between being
able, or ubable, to quite freely walk around in the landscape.
 
>> With the US scheme, where you need advance permission first or else
>> you're trespassing, you're really quite limited when you want to
>> move around -- there are only the public roads available to you, right?
>> Ah yes, there are some parks too -- but they usually close at dusk,
>> don't they?  (we have parks too -- here almost all parks NEVER close....)
>>
>> So imagine this scenario: you're out travelling.  You stop at some
>> point at the road.  You're hungry, you're brought some food, and some
>> distance away from the road you see a hill.  Wouldn't it be nice to
>> climb that hill and enjoy the view while you eat?
>>
>> In Sweden:  Go ahead!  Climb that hill, enjoy your meal and the view !!!!
>> As long as you don't disturb and don't destroy, the landowner has no
>> right to chase you away.
> 
> But s/he does, if you wander into his/her house or agricultural area.
 
Yes, however the houses are only a small part of the land area.  And
crop fields aren't very fun to walk around in anyway.  True, the
hiker doesn't have total freedom to move around, but that's as it
should be: your freedom shouldn't be inhibiting the freedom of others
- right?  This means some restrictions to everybody's freedom, and it
maximises the total freedom.
 
>> In the USA:  Stop!  Are you trespassing?  Is there a fence or some
>> signs?  No, I don't see any -- but that doesn't matter, I still need
>> the landowner's permission, which I don't have.  Now, WHERE is the
>> landowner?  And WHO is the landowner?  Where do I find this out?  How
>> long would it take to find it out?  Nah, too much trouble, I'll drive
>> on to that MacDonalds reastaurant a few miles away instead.  Sigh -- I
>> wish I had lived in a truly free country.....
> 
> Most people here are comfortable with these rules.
 
Only out of habit.  Habits die hard -- most russians were e.g.
comfortable with the system of the Soviet Union, and now there's a
growing movement in Russia which wants that kind of society back.
 
To return to US citizens "being comfortable with these rules": those
rules of yours sometimes create problems.  In sci.astro, there are
frequently posts from skywatchers who are out travelling, perhaps to
more southern latitudes where they can see parts of the sky they
cannot see from home.  Naturally they want to grab the opportunity
and bring their telescopes along.  So they post, asking for good
places to view the sky.  Apart from the regular issues about a free
horizon, steady air, and absence of artificial illumination, there
are other issues which amazes me every time I see them: "Is that
private land?" -- or -- "When does that park close", "Where can I get
permission to go there at night?" et cetera.  These man-made
obstacles are a non-issue here, and the police woulvd laugh at me if
I went there, asking for permission to bring my telescope out at
night...
 
Of course these peoplke could follow your example below, and say "I
prefer to not skywatch outside my yard, I'll stay here, thank you"
- but by doing that, one mentally imprisons oneself.
 
 
>> Now, which of these two alternatives would YOU have preferred?
> 
> I prefer people not roaming into my yard.  I'll stay here, thank you.
 
Oh -- so you never even want to get outside your own land?  Indeed --
habits die very very hard..... but do you think that freedom,
or a restriction of freedom?
 
>> As you say
>> below, the principle counts, not the value of the item...
> 
> Yes and no.  As to laws regarding theft, the value is unimportant.  As to
> civil suits, the value is important in determining damages.
 
Can I be sentenced for theft if the value of the stolen item is
determined to be zero (including "personal value" and other
non-monetary values) ????
 
>> BTW the Swedish "Everybody's Right" also gives you the right to pick
>> up sticks and stones which lie loose on the ground, for your personal
>> use only.  You can also pick berries and mushrooms -- again for your
>> personal use.
>>
>> Which of these systems would you prefer?
> 
> 
> I prefer to have people leave my sticks, stones, berries and mushrooms
> alone.
> If in Sweden, I would abide by Swedish law.  I prefer to live in the US.
 
So if you e.g. someday would visit me here, and I wanted to take you
out on a hike, then you wouldn't come along because you preferred to
not enter someone else's property?  (the property in question would
be a forest, with no house or crop field in sight...)
 
>>>> Yes, that stick or stone is worthless, but as we've seen so many times
>>>> in this newsgroup, ownership issues are just as important for worthless
>>>> items -- it's the PRINCIPLE which counts to some, not the value of the
>>>> items....
>>>
>>> Yes, that is correct.  Statutes and other laws against theft never make
>>> mention of value:  theft is taking the property of another without
>>> consent.
>>> Any law abiding person follows this principle.
>>
>> OTOH no person is 100% law-abiding.....
> 
> Yes, however general defiance of a law is not a recognized defense under
> Anglo-Saxon law.  "Everybody does it" will rarely, if ever, get you off ;-)
 
The rules of the game is of course that if you break a law, you also
run a risk of being caught.  So if you try to avoid a parking fine by
saying "..but everybody parks here", the response should be "..yes,
but it's an unusually expensive parking fee -- a fine -- to park at
that place".
 
Now, when did anyone actually get fined for picking up a stick or a
stone from someone else's property?  (not counting cases like when
the "stone" was e.g. a diamond or other gem... :-)
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch