[NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN

[James Fraser]

Hello,

--- On Sun, 1/17/10, Lord Groundhog <LordGroundhog at gmail.com> wrote:

> Saying all that, I have a REAL problem with the idea that a
> person would refuse to support his software and then also refuse to let
> anyone else do what they can with it.  The expression "dog in a
> manger" comes to mind, and it's not an attractive attribute in a human 
> being, as Aesop noted.  

[smiles]

I agree that the "dog in a manger" scenario is a pretty unattractive one when you think of it in terms of being deprived of the use of something that the "dog" in question won't let you use.  The thing is, when viewed in terms of property rights, the owner of a given piece of property has the right to dispose of it however they see fit.  I liked your "piece of land" analogy, so I'll just extend that a bit further.

Let's say, f'r instance, I have a piece of land that is fenced off and simply sitting there, all dirt and tall weeds.  Someone comes along whose family is going hungry and decides that this piece of land I own would be perfect for growing potatoes.  So they jump the fence, clear a patch of land in the middle, (so their crop can't be spotted from the outside) and start growing potatoes to feed their family.

Given the fact that the land was just lying there, it's easy to take the point of view of the guy with the family going hungry: he's simply making use of land that would otherwise be idle, right?  By his doing so, he's not actually depriving the landowner of anything in a physical sense since, it's obvious, the land is simply sitting there uncultivated (and still is, to all outward appearances).

However, in a moral sense, our illicit potato grower is still violating the property rights of others as, regardless of his own pressing need, that land is simply *not his* to decide what to do with.  IOW: as irritating and downright selfish as it may be, (and as you pointed out in your earlier post) a landowner has the right to let a perfectly good piece of land stand idle, if that is his wish.  

The true test to determine whether or not you own something is the ability to dispose of that "something" however you might wish.  That is, a true property owner can sell that property, make use of it himself, or neglect it completely.  Of course, his rights are subject to the property rights of others, (i.e., I can't suddenly decide to abandon my 1964 Rambler by crashing it through your living room wall) but my letting land sit idle doesn't mean that other folks can then make use of that land, even if they are able to put to an arguably better use.  In the case of software, the author has the right to choose to continue to make the software available under whatever terms and conditions they decide to impose *or* to withhold the use of that software completely.

After all, if the latter case is not allowed to exist, the software in question can't truly be said to belong to the copyright holder any longer, as s/he is being deprived of the right to dispose of the software however they see fit (including withholding its use).

The hitch, of course, is that in the Digital Age, property theft takes place on a much more abstract plane than it once did.  If I download a copy of an application I find on a server somewhere, can it be said that I'm depriving the copyright holder of anything?  In a physical sense, no, as my copying the software doesn't deprive the copyright owner of the software itself and they still retain their copy.  However, my copying the software *does* deprive them of the right to simply hang on to their creation and let it sit there, idle, and of no use to anyone.  

But that's a right that, let's face it, is a difficult one to respect when it's so abstract in the first place.  The fact that, with just a couple of clicks, software can be moved from one hard drive onto another almost at the speed of thought doesn't make things easier, either.  It's become harder than it ever was before to realize just what, exactly, is taking place when you grab an old application that has lain idle to years and that the author has seemingly lost all interest in.  Alas, losing interest in something is not tantamount to giving up one's rights to it.

It's exasperating, I know, but for property rights to mean anything, the right for people to let their property lay idle has to be allowed to exist, even if you and I happen to find ourselves desperate potato farmers (or needy end users).  While it's a very subtle point, if the rights of the individual are not respected by the group, the group cannot exist.


Best,

James Fraser