Re: A time for action...

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

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. Capitalistic theory works
somewhat tolerably, because in the great majority of circumstances, market
prices more or less reflect this. 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. 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. 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. The
labor can be measured in man-hours for physical activity, but software I
have no clue. 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!!!!!
(Or if they haven't, for god's sake make it available for sale, and we'll
correct that soon enough.)

    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. 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. 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.

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

    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. 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, 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, the only
paying jobs are  prostitute and groveling household servant. Fun, huh?

John