Re: A time for action...

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

It's kinda late, and I don't want to start a totally new dispute, and frankly, I
find disagreement disagreeable, but I will make a few short comments

**** **** wrote:

> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote in message
>
> >Who would download zero value software? If it has no value at all, you
> wouldn't go to
> >the trouble of downloading, would you? If I were to use Napster to download
> music, I
> >wouldn't download the stuff that my sons' listen to... why? It is
> "zero-value" music.
> >So then, if might be hard to figure out the market value of this software,
> but the
> >fact that people do go to the trouble to download it shows that it has some
> value,
> >even if there isn't a marketplace to put a dollar figure to it.
>
> Roy,
>     The value of a thing, be it physical and tangible, or abstract and
> intangible, is solely dependent on the amount of labor/effort that went into
> its creation, and the magnitude of its necessity.

The word "value" has different meanings, all related. Ruby was using the word in
the sense of monetary value. BTW, your definition is very close to the Marxist
one, and thereby falls somewhat short.

> Capitalistic theory works
> somewhat tolerably, because in the great majority of circumstances, market
> prices more or less reflect this.

Market prices reflect the relative value based on supply and demand. The beanie
baby that you mentioned below wouldn't be worth $2500, if 1) there were many
more of them, 2) if no one wanted them.

> A person generally doesn't build something
> that requires a large amount of labor, if he reasonably sees that the market
> price won't be high enough to justify it.

But that isn't true, some people, for example build their own homes, by hand,
not to save money, but for the pleasure and assurance of living in a home that
they built with their own hands, sweat, and ingenuity, and they know (or think
they know) that it was well built. Here the market doesn't enter at all, or
hardly at all into the question. Just try buying a house like that. From the
owner. The day after they move in. :-)

> As such, market prices can
> approximate value most of the time, but a $2500 beanie baby is practically
> valueless. The injustice of its market price stems from the perversity of
> the wealthy, who have no better entertainment than to manipulate prices for
> financial audacity's sake.

Oh my. The wealthy don't bit up the value of beanie babies. Since, you point
here, and I think I share it with you, the beanie baby has no inherent value,
why spend $2500 for it, if in 6 months or two years there won't be a market for
it? A collector might (I've lost more eBay auctions this way), but someone with
a good knowledge of value won't. Wealthy people usually get that way by being
smart with money and investments.

> This used to be the realm of the super-rich, that
> the upper middle class now plays at this shows just how decadent things
> really are.
>
>     So, yes the software has value, in that Rubywand is wrong. Labor was
> involved in it's creation, and there is a small amount of necesity.

I don't *need* Choplifter*, but I might be willing to spend $5 - $10 to get a
copy. Not because of the labor or necessity, but because I want it, and I have
more money than I must have for my *needs*.

> The
> labor can be measured in man-hours for physical activity, but software I
> have no clue.

What about the labor of thought? Planning? And the knowledge and experience that
had to be acquired prior to creating the piece of software? That's one reason by
doctor's get paid so well, they had to put off "life", in some cases, until
their early thirties, spending from 18-32 just getting the knowledge and
experience needed to start making a living, to pay off their debts, and to start
reaping the rewards of their years of sacrifice.

> Necessity? It's certainly not life and death need, but a
> little (alot?) less than opulent luxury. Now, that being the case, we need
> to reimburse the author/creator for their effort. Oh wait...
>
> Not only do they make it all but impossible to do so...
>
> BUT THEY HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED MANY TIMES OVER!!!!!

Have they? In movies and television, the actors and writers get small payments
for many, many years after their work, since their work still brings in dollars.

>
> (Or if they haven't, for god's sake make it available for sale, and we'll
> correct that soon enough.)

Software artists, like writers, usually sign some kind of contract that gives a
publisher the rights to the sale and distribution of their work, with various
conditions. If the publisher is still in business, and the contract is still
valid, the artist might not be able to release their rights. If a company goes
under, some other company often buys up their intellectual property. So ditto.
Or the rights might revert to the artist. So we find ourselves on a case by case
basis.

>
>
>     Damn, how do we handle this? Well, we can cry and whine and make
> petty-assed insults about those who choose, rightly or wrongly, to ignore
> copyright statutes.

And what about the "petty-assed insults" made toward those of us who believe in
defending the rights of the software artists who brought us these works? It cuts
both ways. But you know, I've never seen anyone complain about that. Why is
that? Hmmm??

> We could even mistakenly percieve this argument as a
> justification to download all the mp3's you want off of napster, because
> Mecrapica is a cool band.

Shudder

> Or, we could take the least popular approach, and
> go on a 2 day righteous crusade to change these laws, because we all know
> that "$500 billion" a year soulless industries have so little influence with
> the goverment.

Money talks in politics, because politicians need to get their message to people
and that costs money. However, it's votes, not dollars, that count. And if you
can deliver votes, or deny with, you will be heard. However, I doubt that
several hundred Apple II lovers nation-wide will make much of an impact.  :-(

>
>
>     I mean, has it never occurred once, that by trading mp3's you might be
> providing a valuable service to humanity?

No.  :-)
However, since most musicians make their living from concerts, not record sales,
many not only don't care, their glad, they hope it will mean more ticket sales
when they come through your town again.

> If I were to find a safe method of
> depriving lice or tapeworms of their food source, you'd call me a hero. So,
> why is it that when the parasite is some no-talent grunge band, the rules
> change all of the sudden? Think about it. Lars Ulrich eats the food that
> others grow. Wears the clothes that others make. Lives in the houses that
> other build. What does he contribute in return?

He sells something that many people are willing to pay for. While I would agree
about talent, etc., his buying power is what it is, because people wish to
exchange it for listening to him torture some drums (in the inner ear) with his
friends. No one makes them do that. If more people had better taste, he'd have
to get an honest job. :-)

> Hell, even if through some
> twisted logic, you come to the conclusion that he somehow earns his keep,
> how then do you the justify hundreds of lawyers that the MPAA or RIAA
> employs?

Sigh. Defense of lawyers? Gag. However, they wouldn't make a living if people
didn't want their services, and were willing to pay for them.

>
>
>     Sorry, got side-tracked. Anyway, I propose this. Have some software that
> you want, but is no longer available commercially? Well, find a "pirate" ftp
> ro whatever, and download it. But before you use it, you write out a check
> for $5-15 and photocopy it. Make it payable to whoever the copyright holder
> is, and mail it to them. Include an itemized bill, so that it is clear what
> you are paying for. If somehow it gets cashed, that is license to use it,
> and I'd like to see someone try to argue otherwise. I give it 80% that it
> won't be cashed, in which case they are holding a monopoly on software and
> restricting its availibility to leverage their way into other markets, which
> is an illegal use of monopoly powers.

Interesting idea. However, the overwhelming number of people who use shareware
never pay, so I doubt that this idea will work either.

> At that point, they are at least as
> guilty as you, depending on how you see things. If Standard Oil fixes
> gasoline prices, you probably will still go to jail for siphoning it out of
> their tanks in the middle of the night. But hey, at least we won't have to
> listen to the garbage about the poor starving industry associations, who
> can't afford to feed their lawyers. This way, you can still be honest to
> your principles, and get what you need. Also, this isn't exactly the same as
> walking up to someone and offering $10 for their car, and then stealing it
> when they turn you down. Think about it, you aren't depriving them of the
> software's use (they still have their copy), and you aren't depriving them
> of financial reimbursement (they refused). Legal or not, even a moron can
> see that there is no ethical dilema here.
>
>     And best of all, you've now fixed the problem, without having to go near
> lawyers and politicians, which can lead to all sorts of diseases of the
> soul. Really, close proximity to these demonic entities is is the mental
> equivalent of a daily stroll through Chernobyl.
>
>     Oh, one other thing, this may be a solution, but a really poor one.
> Fifty years from now, when the world is 100% automated,

My view of the future differs some from yours.

> the same people will
> own the robots, that would have owned them had we not done this. And when
> the average man can't even sell his labor, degrading as that is,

Labor isn't degrading, it is ennobling.

> the only
> paying jobs are  prostitute and groveling household servant.

Well, I've never groveled, and I've never been a household servant, but I doubt
you could get a robot to clean a toilet well, or stoop to that level :-)   I
paid my way through college and grad school by being a janitor (among other
jobs), and I've had to clean up some real messes, as well as make filthy floors
gleam. I was never degraded by it.

> Fun, huh?

You wouldn't know about "fun" unless you had to clean up a women's rest room.
(Shudder!!)

>
> John

Roy