jeradonah wrote:
>
> actually, not even close. that analogy is so overused and so misguided
> that it is virtually useless. yes, i understand that you want to hold
> on to your industrial-era concepts, but they simply don't fit without
> some major bastardizations. if you want to stick with your home analogy,
> then consider that the land upon which you built it would have to be
> basically worthless, especially in comparison to what it contains (the
> house), with the house itself built on with a combination of semi-private
> and public license labors.
Eh, in what way is breaking into someone's machine *NOT* like tresspassing?
> ok, if one of the builders leaves his hammer
> behind, you would generally let him in in order to retrieve it.
Because it was his property and not yours.
> but what
> about the plummer who has a second thought and needs to improve your
> pipes?
Need? Since when does an outside contractor own your pipes? You've paid for
the services, the raw material. They're now your pipes. Whether he's being
nice to you and remembering a fuckup or a need for an improvement, he doesn't
get to get in your house again without your approval.
> he may or may not have helped built the ("your") house, but he
> could reasonably be expected to be let in.
Only if you ALLOW him access.
> but then, what if that plummer
> simply wants to inspect your pipes, looking for improvements, thinking
> through the system, et al? your analogy is founded on archaic concepts...
Then he may ask, but he cannot force his way in. He doesn't own the pipes.
<SNIP>
> i am not speaking of intellectual property, but the traditional
> forms to which you analogized. your computer is just a dumb terminal, a
> *box,* worthless without the work products of others. if you are a
> microsoft lackie, then your software is (nominally) owned by microsoft,
> but it is still dependent on the cooperative work of those who came before
> it or worked outside of it (microsoft). no matter what, the public
> license part of your system is far more valuable than the hardware portion
> of it -- which is what you generally think of as "yours." and this is the
> dichotomy of the knowledge economy: knowledge is both distributed (in
> order to be valuable) and personal (in order to be specific). the old
> rules do not apply...
Sure they do. Lets go back to the plumber. He comes in with his own tools.
Now, while you may have your own hammer, he'll use his. You can require him to
use your hammer, but then, licensing/insurance/his personal preferences/etc may
cause him to tell you to go fuck yourself.
Now, your hammer may be a perfectly fine hammer. But it's not your hammer.
You do not get to keep it when he walks off.
You get to keep the results of his work. i.e. working plumbing.
Ditto for the case of a contractor that comes in with his own notebook. You
might ask to search it before and after, and he could tell you to get another
contractor if he doesn't want the invasion of privacy.
You still gain the results of his using his tools. That is he cannot build
pipes for himself or for another client while on your time, but you still own
the pipes he built, and you may ask that he does not make/keep duplicate copies
of your pipes.
i.e. You own the bits, be they source code, binary, or man pages. But you do
not keep the contractor's machine, nor without his approval (or court order) do
you get to search its files.
> again, bad analogy. you don't *own* what is valuable on your computer,
> you merely own what you create.
Not if you're getting paid for what you create. Then it becomes your
clients/employer's intellectual property.
> the box itself is basically worthless
> (try selling it after you have used it).
The box itself is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Used computers
do fetch decent prices. See www.ebay.com - plenty of people are willing to
purchase used machines. Which means, you're clueless.
> and no one is forcing you to
> connect to the network, although you are forced to have the public street
> in front of your house.
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to have a public street infront of your
house. If you don't like it, buy 20 acres of land, and build your house on
that.
> people like these simple analogies, it makes them
> feel comfortable, but the old rules simply do not apply...
But they do, and we don't need new laws when the old ones fit.
> no, the fact that it is a computer generally does not. the fact that it
> contains software that is neither *owned* nor created by its "owner" does
> though. very different. moreover, the fact that it is connected
> to a distributed (note i did not use the word public) network also makes
> it very different. sorry, but the old rules do not apply, and trying to
> force them to the distributed knowledge environment merely makes you a
> dictator, not right...
But it does not make the personal files stored on that box your employer's
property any more than the messages on my answering machine are the property of
Bell Atlantic, or the files on my web server the property of Concentric just
because I buy DSL service from them.
> the fact is that the rules and laws of this new environment do not yet
> exist, and we have to be vigilant every single day to insure that the
> old rules and regulations of the archaic political economy are not crammed
> down our throuts.
Bullshit, the old laws fit just fine. You seem to be trolling for new laws.
New laws allow Big Brother to sneak in his pro-spy back doors. No thanks.
Keep your new fascist laws you Fed troll. I want no part of them.
> why do we act with surprise at each new case where the
> old ways are threatened and the old institutions challenge what we have
> wrought? it is not only predictable, it is a necessary means for forcing
> the transition from the old political economy to a new form of organizing
> ourselves politically, economically and socially...
You perhaps are acting in surprise. I know my files are mine, my hardware is
mine. If I'm paid to create files for my employer or client, then they are
theirs, not mine, and I do not get to keep backups unless he allows me to
explicitly. Nor do I get to patent any ideas I have while on company time, nor
do I get to copyright works created as a direct result of working for my
employer, etc.
The old property and intellectual property laws fit just fine. Go and visit
the clue server.
--
---------------------------- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos --------------------
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
<--*--> -------------------- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ.
---------------------------- http://www.sunder.net -----------------------
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
