Napster: ethics and installation

[Joel Meulenberg]

> however, i've got a deeper question. how do we know that copying
> copyrighted
> materials is wrong? when Moses wrote "thou shalt not steal," everyone
> understood that if I get your loaf of bread, you don't have it any
> longer.
> that's different from when you have a file, and give me a copy. you
> still
> have the file.

That is a deep question.  I won't pretend that I have the answer, but I
do have some thoughts.

I've not experienced it, but I've heard that in countries/times lacking
"the rule of law" the most basic forms of work/production slow down or
even come to a virtual halt.  For example, if you're a farmer in a
time/place without the rule of law and every time you gather your
crops, guys with guns come and take it (or (think future) they simply
"teleport" it away : ) ), you're soon going to lose the will to sow (at
least on a large scale) since you ultimately won't reap.

I imagine that, if things got really out of hand, the same could happen
to information goods.  A music artist who knows that she won't reap any
rewards for releasing her creations might choose not to make it
available.  Or, worse yet, since she cannot sustain herself doing what
she does best (making music), she has to spend the majority of her work
time sweeping floors or doing "quality assurance" for GM or teaching
piano lessons just to sustain herself and that leaves much less time
for her to create music.
Of course, this assumes things "getting really out of hand".

You mentioned the download times, burning time, etc. associated with
"stealing" a CD (and ultimately getting a worse product) and how that
outweights the $12.99 cost for many people.  But now imagine that
everyone has OC-12 to their homes and anyone can simply utter (or
think!) the command - "Get me Dr. Demento's tune 'Boot to the Head'."
and almost instantly you have it.  Or, taking it a step further,
imagine we have "replicators" (like in Star Trek) and virtually
unlimited free energy (by harnessing atomic energy or something). 
Then, given a copy of a molecular model of the physical CD, you can
have a perfect replica of the original CD complete with artwork!

In that vision of the future, the scarcest and most valuable resource
is probably human attention.  Loaves of bread or instances of any
physical object are had virtually for free, but they won't
design/create themselves.  Peoples' mental attention is needed to
design/create initially - whether it's music or banana nut bread
divine.

Now you might be thinking:  Assume we have replicators and nanite
builders and unlimited free energy and whatnot.  Then it's a given that
everyone has the basic necessities.  Many people will create (music,
software, bread molecular models, etc.) simply because it's what they
like to do.  So what's wrong with having them simply doing what they do
best and giving it away to the world for free?  Well, nothing I guess -
if that's what they want.  However, I see some issues with this
arrangement:

1. Without incentives to do something with their attention, I suspect
that some would piss it all away (or most of it) - not that there's
anything "wrong" with that either.  (When I think about it, I guess I'm
casting that in a negative light because it doesn't help mankind
achieve the "transhumanist" goals (i.e.- be all that we can be) that I
think would be fun to achieve.  As with many other behaviors, not using
our most precious resource (i.e.- human attention) for something
constructive is neither "right" nor "wrong" - just more or less useful
in a given context.  In the context of "achieving a better
understanding of the universe" or pursuing any admirable goal, playing
video games is not useful, yet I play video games. (I suppose I've
digressed into relativism or something like that.))

2. Even people who want to give (some or all of) their creations away
for free would likely create *more slowly* than if there were
incentives to create.  Is having everyone creating more slowly a "good"
or a "bad" thing?  Again, it's only more or less useful in a given
context. 

3. It seems to me that it's a limitation of the freedom of creators to
*not* allow them to have some control over the use/duplication of their
creations.  This point is a little trickier because some restrictions
on the use of a creation seem unethical.  For example, it seems wrong
for a country music artist to declare that "Yankees" may not purchase
or listen to their music.  (It's seems "wrong" because we're empathetic
(i.e.- the underpinnings of "the golden rule").  Empathy is generally a
good thing as long as we are humble and grok those on whom we are
inflicting our empathy.  (Things that come to mind include: 
"(Hypothetical) Preventing the piggies from 'slaughtering' each other
in Orson Scott Card's 'Xenocide'" and even "Saving the heathens".)

However, declaring that customers must pay if they wish to
experience/use one's creation seems OK.  Anyone may have the
experience, they just have to pay (which really boils down to trading
"attention currency").  At the same time, no one is forced to pay for
it directly or indirectly.  (The "Microsoft Tax" associated with
purchasing a new computer system comes to mind here.  (The OEM, due to
their contract with MS, must include the cost of Winders whether or not
the customer even gets Winders with the system!!))


Whew.  This post has gotten much longer than I expected.
I could spew more ideas, but I've gotta finish up some enhancements to
a DHTML/Javascript-based GUI widget and contribute it to the "DynAPI"
free software project at SourceForge.net (some people are waiting for
it).  (BTW, see point #2 above.  ; ) )

+Joel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/