From - Wed Jan 2 08:22:34 2002 Received: from mrh3.oaktech.com ([207.16.148.23]) by mrh1.oaktech.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.6a) with ESMTP id 2002010219464140:941 ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 19:46:41 -0800 Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by mrh3.oaktech.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g033keE27093 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 19:46:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from user-vcauqcu.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.105.158] helo=there) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16Lypy-000855-00 for greglondon@oaktech.com; Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:46:38 -0500 From: David Johnson Organization: Usermode To: Greg London Subject: Re: document Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 19:48:32 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <3C2B92B2.F58AAED@oaktech.com> In-Reply-To: <3C2B92B2.F58AAED@oaktech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mrh1/oaktech/us(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/02/2002 07:46:41 PM, Serialize by POP3 Server on ma1/oaktech/us(Release 5.0.6a |January 17, 2001) at 01/02/2002 11:16:24 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: DB26C06338383A1088256B360014C113 On Thursday 27 December 2001 01:29 pm, you wrote: > would you give it a read and let me know if I > should keep working on it or just scrap the > whole thing? Okay, continuing where I left off... I think your discussion on the differences between writings/discoveries and= =20 thoughts/ideas needs to be shortened and streamlined. I don't think that the public bequeathing a copyright or invention is=20 analogous to a barn raising. It isn't a gift exchange. The public expects a= nd=20 *demands* that the writing or discovery be placed into the public domain at= a=20 specific future date. The analogous situation would be a barn-raising where= =20 the community now had the right to hold barn dances in the barn in the futu= re. It might be useful to explain the concept of property somewhere. The reason= =20 being is that the natural state of a writing *is* property. If I own my=20 notebook then I own what is written down in it. If I allow you to use my=20 notebook to make photocopies of, then the copies are your property in their= =20 natural state. I cannot force you to give them back nor to compel you to=20 disclose/redistribute them. The reason (in my opinion) for copyright and patents is to encourage the=20 property owner to give up some property rights in exchange for other proper= ty=20 rights, so as to benefit the public. The Open Source model wishes the owner= =20 to give up more rights in exchange for less rights, but no OSS license, GPL= =20 included, gives up ALL ownership rights. The problem comes in the form of "pure" information. The author is ensured = of=20 complete control over his notebook (or harddrive), but has zero control onc= e=20 the pure information on it has been revealed. So they may be reluctant to=20 reveal it in the first place. IP laws encourage the revelation in exchange = for classifying the information as property. Side note: current IP is a strange mixture of property law and contract law= .=20 A copyright is a curious blend of a deed of ownership and defact=20 non-disclosure agreement. Fitting IP into a pure property model would be=20 interesting. Instead of getting a license you would get a deed to one=20 copy. You can do whatever you want with that *one* copy because it is yours= .=20 You can make as many copies as you want, but since you only have *one* deed= ,=20 you can only give away one copy (but keep the rest). This would keep the=20 author's'interests at hand while still allowing the user to give away one=20 copy. Mass reproduction would be prohibited but sharing with your friend=20 would be legal. "In a farming community, if Barn-Raisings are few and far between, a person= =20 giving a gift of time and energy may never see the community gift that ener= gy=20 back to everyone who contributed." I don't see this. If barn raisings were few and far between they would=20 probably be more popular. Consider if you had to take a day off work once a= =20 week to help raise a barn, rather than once a year or once a decade. "Therefore, with respect to IP law, once the Gift of rights is given from t= he=20 Public to the individual creator, that transaction ends." No, it is a commodity exchange. If the creator never releases the work then= =20 the public never has any rights to it. Until it is released it is solely=20 owned by the individual. It is a commodity exchange because the public give= s=20 a set of rights in exchange for the release of the work. "IP as Gift, the Short Version" I'm going to have to disagree on this, for reasons given above. The IP is=20 already owned by the writer/inventor before it is disclosed.=20 "Model (1) ignores the fact that the natural state of ideas is that they ar= e=20 free for anyone to copy and use as they see fit." Those ideas can only be copied and used after they are disclosed. And even = if=20 they are disclosed they might still be covered under an NDA. Okay, end of part one. I'm going to take a break again. --=20 David Johnson =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website