Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: mark@unicorn.com
> Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig

> Of course there's a free-market remedy for Microsoft; eliminate copyright. If
> anyone can copy Microsoft software for free, it would be forced to compete
> on real benefits rather than installed base.

If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market software
or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of the technology
and infrastructure we have now wouldn't exist. It would also stiffle
creativity and new methodologies because there would be no profit in it to
recoup development costs. Those who would survive in such a market would be
the 800-lb gorillas because only they would have the resources to squash the
smaller companies.

Free markets monopolize.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |       The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate,       |
   |       but the desire to edit somebody elses words.                 |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                  Sign in Ed Barsis' office         |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
> > From: mark@unicorn.com
> > Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig
> 
> > Of course there's a free-market remedy for Microsoft; eliminate copyright. If
> > anyone can copy Microsoft software for free, it would be forced to compete
> > on real benefits rather than installed base.
> 
> If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market software
> or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of the technology
> and infrastructure we have now wouldn't exist.

Thats pretty obvious.  I'm usually the last person to defend
Microsoft, but
cancelling copyright is throwing the baby out with the
proverbial bathwater.

There are a couple of obvious free market solutions.  The first
that comes
to mind is to stop buying Microsoft product.  This needs to be
restated because
even though obvious, it has a number of important follow-on
conclusions.

(1) There are other usable operating systems. (linux, mac-os,
os/2)
(2) There are other usable applications. (applix, macwrite?,
whatever)

Why won't people stop buying microsoft product?

(1) FUD helped along by a microsoft reality-altering marketing
budget
(2) The *applications* they write are sometimes quite usable.
(3) Their applications only work on *their* OS (mostly)?  Why is
that?
(4) Their OS, even considering its questionable quality has,
until this
    point, hornswaggled a bunch of developers because its the
*defacto*
    desktop applications API.  Why that is the case is probably
a topic
    for endless speculation -- though it probably comes down to
some
    version of the "stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap"
philosophy -- 
    something that Apple still hasn't learned.

(5) ...and most importantly of all...it hasn't become painfull
enough
    yet to stop purchasing Microsoft software.

> 
> Free markets monopolize.
> 

Hmmm.  Thats a rather sweeping generalization.  Perhaps it would
be more
enlightening to discuss the nature of monopolies.  It is rarely
possible
to enforce a monopoly that isn't a natural monopoly.  A company
will tend
to keep a lion's share of the market as long as continued
investment
in more efficient production gives them greater market share --
bringing
you cheaper goods and larger quantities of them.  At that point
nobody cares
because quality goods are being sold as low prices.  When that
breaks down
all natural monopolies start to crumble or revert to their
previous market
share.

Having said that, let me follow it with a big "all other things
being equal".

One of the reasons NT became popular is because they priced
their NT
server not "by the client" as Novell used to, but at a
flat-price (if
memory serves -- which it is doing more infrequently these days
;-)

In doing so Novell's market share took a serious hit.  To some
extent
I say good riddance.  Novell server's IMOHO suck as a server
architecture
(not to mention truly horrible and snotty tech support).

Novell didn't react quickly enough and lost tremendous market
share.  Are
we suggesting that Novell be protected by the US Justice
Department?
I certainly hope not.  You are welcome to go back to those days.

The only other kinds of monopolies are cartels, and government
enforced
monopolies of both the public and private kind (the latter being
the most
heinous).

Cartels always collapse because one of the partners will
eventually see
the increasing profits to be made by breaking the cartel.  When
this happens
the company that breaks the cartel is the winner and the last
one to leave
the cartel may well collapse financially.  If members of a
Cartel get
together and use guns to prevent the breakup of the cartel then
that
is a lot more like a government enforced private monopoly -- bad
news.

Government-enforced public monopolies like the US Post office
and public
education are wasteful, out of touch with their markets (because
of
the lack of competitive price feedback) and thus inefficient. 
They
have no valid function in a free society and are a waste of
taxpayer
dollars.  The USPS will tell you that everything is hunky-dory
because
they don't use taxpayer dollars.  What they don't tell you is
that the
difference between the price you pay for their stamps and what
you would
in a free market is your tax.  (this and the strange tendency of
workers
to "go postal" -- you rarely hear about FedEX employees going on
an
AK47 rampage, must be the water ;-)

Goverment-enforced private monopolies teeter dangerously close
to the
pure definition of fascism.  Fascism, from the latin "fascia"
means
"to bind together" (perhaps you remember the "fascia" tissue
from
high-school biology class during dissection of frogs, cats and
other
unlucky animals).  In this case they bind a force monopoly with
a
yet-to-be-named monopoly.  Classic examples of
Fascism^h^h^h^h^h^h^h government
enforced-private-monopolies in the US are the Federal Reserve
System, the 
AMA, and the local Bar associations.  Why is this?  All these
monopolies
depend on FUD and govt to enforce their services.  "What would
happen if we didn't
regulate xyz is that all hell would break loose and many people
would
lead lives of horrible desperation.  'There oughta be a law!'
etc...blah blah..."
You know the drill.

Now that we have a perspective on monopolies, perhaps we can
take
a look a microsoft.  Microsoft is not a force monopoly
(usually), its not
run by the government (thank god), it doesn't appear to be a
cartel
(usually) so unless further information comes in it looks like a
natural monopoly.  What does it take to undo a natural monoply?

Build something cheaper, better and more reliable.

Its just possible (and this might be a stretch, but only by a
little)
that Linux, Free Netscape Sources, Java etc might acheive this.

Certainly Apache is more popular than any other webserver.

How you come up with a new product in this type of market
without
M$ "re-inventing it" and giving it away is anyone's guess.

(1) Hope that Linux/Scape/Java/KDE do something big
(2) Write a Win95/NT compatible operating system that is
    faster and cheaper.  If you can clone a Pentium, you
    can clone Windoze.  (visions of a QNX like OS with Win32
    API dance in my head).  A GPL'd VSTa-based Win32 OS
    would be pretty amazing.  This would be necessary because
    games are a big market and the Linux kernel just doesn't
    have what it takes to do realtime without a major hack.
    How about VSTa/a free DOS emulator/Wine.  If Sun would
    fund this effort it could take a lot of wind out of
    M$ sails.  Probably more than Java.  McNeally would have
    to hop down from his high-horse.

    When will this happen?  When the market gets tired of
    M$ practices and some lucky competitor comes to the
    fore.  Until then there is no devine right to a percentage
    of the operating system market share.

We can only code and hope.

(donning flame retardant vest)

jim burnes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

on or about 980205:1438, in <34DA3157.1FF4FA7A@ssds.com>, 
    Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com> was purported to have 
    expostulated to perpetuate an opinion:

>Jim Choate wrote:
>> 
>> Forwarded message:
>> 
>> > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
>> > From: mark@unicorn.com
>> > Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig
>> 
[snip]

>so unless further information comes in it looks like a
>natural monopoly.  What does it take to undo a natural monoply?

>Build something cheaper, better and more reliable.

>Its just possible (and this might be a stretch, but only by a little)
>that Linux, Free Netscape Sources, Java etc might acheive this.
>Certainly Apache is more popular than any other webserver.

>How you come up with a new product in this type of market without
>M$ "re-inventing it" and giving it away is anyone's guess.

>(1) Hope that Linux/Scape/Java/KDE do something big
>(2) Write a Win95/NT compatible operating system that is
>    faster and cheaper.  If you can clone a Pentium, you
>    can clone Windoze.  (visions of a QNX like OS with Win32
>    API dance in my head).  A GPL'd VSTa-based Win32 OS
>    would be pretty amazing.  This would be necessary because
>    games are a big market and the Linux kernel just doesn't
>    have what it takes to do realtime without a major hack.
>    How about VSTa/a free DOS emulator/Wine.  If Sun would
>    fund this effort it could take a lot of wind out of
>    M$ sails.  Probably more than Java.  McNeally would have
>    to hop down from his high-horse.

>    When will this happen?  When the market gets tired of
>    M$ practices and some lucky competitor comes to the
>    fore.  Until then there is no devine right to a percentage
>    of the operating system market share.

>We can only code and hope.

>(donning flame retardant vest)
>jim burnes

    dont need a flame retardent vest for my direction. I agree in theory
    that all it takes is a better product --unless the 800 lb gorilla
    steals it, borrows it, whatever and puts it out for free which they
    have been know to do on more than one occasion.

    and, the fact M$ has such enormous leverage in the market to command
    the pole position for any product they promote (even vapourware), is
    why society does have a responsibility to its members to level the
    playing field.  until the sheeple stop following the Judas to the
    Micro$lop slaughter house, the law must finally step in and break it
    up --or as Orrin Hatch said: "if M$ does monopolize the net, look for
    an "Federal Internet Commission" --using the law to surgically dismember
    M$ into logical divisions is one thing --living with another regulatory 
    commission is another, and certainly not very "tasty".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be

iQBVAwUBNNqhIrR8UA6T6u61AQErYgIAlBOGfnn/R9IuZD42Yl2hRb2amKY8049s
bLaD3SdJd4ulqoTkvl/UiM3hF6vhs3bbe0N1PN4xpZrgW5GxSCoGPA==
=B0dD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 11:52 PM -0800 2/5/98, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 1:38 PM -0800 2/5/98, in a generally right on post, Jim Burnes wrote:
>>(this and the strange tendency of
>>workers
>>to "go postal" -- you rarely hear about FedEX employees going on
>>an
>>AK47 rampage, must be the water ;-)
>
>No, the problem is the US Postal Service's willingness to tolerate assholes
>as managers.  There may be an argument for pinning that on the government
>monopoly aspects of the USPS as well.

Not just the managers, but the ordinary employees...

The Postal Service is effectively bound to keep employees on that any
normal business would have simply given the boot to.

The benefits of government service....

(Yes, yes, I know some of you will be tempted to cite the official line
that the Postal Service is no longer a government agency. Well, this is a
distinction without a difference. The USPS retains governmental protections
against competition, has government-like powers and protections, and is
still run by a "Postmaster General," not a Chairman of the Board or
President or CEO. It ain't FedEx or Airborne. Or even UPS, which emulates
government agencies.)


--Tim May

"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 05:41 PM 2/6/98 -0800, bill.stewart@pobox.com wrote:

>I don't care if they call their boss Grand Wazoo Snail Mail Evangelist;
>there are software and ice cream companies that use non-standard titles too.
>"Postal Inspector" is a much more serious problem title, since they
>seem to have quasi-police powers to do criminal investigations of
>postal offenses like pornography and pyramid scams and running competing
>formatted-tree-product information delivery services.

A few years ago, they actually said that they stopped the armed raids on corporate mailrooms to investigate the crime of using Fedex for non-critical First Class deliveries.  The Postal Inspectors are still Peace Officers, however.  But then so are the Railroad Police.

DCF

Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:

> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
> > From: mark@unicorn.com
> > Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig
> 
> > Of course there's a free-market remedy for Microsoft; eliminate copyright. 
> > anyone can copy Microsoft software for free, it would be forced to compete
> > on real benefits rather than installed base.
> 
> If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market software
> or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of the technology
> and infrastructure we have now wouldn't exist. It would also stiffle
> creativity and new methodologies because there would be no profit in it to
> recoup development costs. Those who would survive in such a market would be
> the 800-lb gorillas because only they would have the resources to squash the
> smaller companies.

Software development seems to be thriving in countries that aren't very keen
on enforcing copyright laws - do you care to explain why?
> 
> Free markets monopolize.
Hmm... There's no copyright on perfumes.  There are market leaders in perfumes,
but no monopoly; hardly even an olygopoly.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > Forwarded message:
> > 
> > > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:23:58 -0800 (PST)
> > > From: mark@unicorn.com
> > > Subject: Re: the best justice money can buy --Lessig
> > 
> > > Of course there's a free-market remedy for Microsoft; eliminate copyright. 
> > > anyone can copy Microsoft software for free, it would be forced to compete
> > > on real benefits rather than installed base.
> > 
> > If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market software
> > or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of the technology

[SNIP]

> 
> Software development seems to be thriving in countries that aren't very keen
> on enforcing copyright laws - do you care to explain why?

Would you care to explain where? 

There's a big difference between a "flourishing" market for custom,
in-house-only software (especially in a language that is not high on the
list for US developers), and a commercial software market consisting of
widely distributed applications. The in-house stuff doesn't need copyright
protection; it's never allowed out, and even if it were, what are the odds
it could be used by others without access to source code?  Custom software
is more a matter of selling a service than a "product", and it's a lot
harder to "bootleg" services. 

What software products can you come up with that have the same level of 
market penetration as those engineered in the US or Canada? How many of 
those are from nations that do not honor copyright?


> > 
> > Free markets monopolize.
> Hmm... There's no copyright on perfumes.  There are market leaders in perfumes,
> but no monopoly; hardly even an olygopoly.
> 

That's because the primary product is the image built by advertising, not 
the scent which is often fairly accurately duplicated (not that I'd know 
- my favorite scent is hallertau).

One of my professors defined advertising as "creating demand for that 
which is inherently worthless."

At 1:38 PM -0800 2/5/98, in a generally right on post, Jim Burnes wrote:
>(this and the strange tendency of
>workers
>to "go postal" -- you rarely hear about FedEX employees going on
>an
>AK47 rampage, must be the water ;-)

No, the problem is the US Postal Service's willingness to tolerate assholes
as managers.  There may be an argument for pinning that on the government
monopoly aspects of the USPS as well.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | Market research shows the  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | average customer has one   | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | teat and one testicle.     | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

At 02:47 PM 2/6/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>(Yes, yes, I know some of you will be tempted to cite the official line
>that the Postal Service is no longer a government agency. Well, this is a
>distinction without a difference. The USPS retains governmental protections
>against competition, has government-like powers and protections, and is
>still run by a "Postmaster General," not a Chairman of the Board or
>President or CEO. It ain't FedEx or Airborne. Or even UPS, which emulates
>government agencies.)

I don't care if they call their boss Grand Wazoo Snail Mail Evangelist;
there are software and ice cream companies that use non-standard titles too.
"Postal Inspector" is a much more serious problem title, since they
seem to have quasi-police powers to do criminal investigations of
postal offenses like pornography and pyramid scams and running competing
formatted-tree-product information delivery services.

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 10:34 AM 2/5/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market 
>software or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of 
>the technology and infrastructure we have now wouldn't exist. 
>It would also stiffle [sic] creativity and new methodologies because 
>there would be no profit in it to recoup development costs.

If there were no copyright, markets for information and entertainment
would definitely have evolved differently than they have in the US
and Europe, and would use much different mechanisms for getting money
to the producers of information, such as standard sale contracts.*
On the other hand, if there were no colonialism, markets for sheep in
New Zealand would have evolved much differently than they did,
a problem they're now gradually working their way out of.

The music business, for example, handles paying authors when their works
are performed by performers through mechanisms other than just
charging big bucks for sheet music.  The Free Software Foundation found
that with a bit of academic and military socialism to jump start it,
there are a lot of reasons for people to create value and beauty,
and you can even talk corporations into paying money for support.
Van Gogh found good reasons to paint, in spite of being broke.
Michaelangelo found good reasons to paint, and Gutenberg found
good reasons to print, in spite of not having copyright protection.
Newspapers eveolved in an environment where copyright wasn't a big deal;
if your competitors ripped off your stories, they were a day late,
and you could rag them about it in your own paper.
Mainframe software evolved in an environment where contracts
covered use of the software, and copyright was seldom relevant;
that has gradually changed with mass-market computers, but
it took a while for courts to accept the idea of copyrighting
software, and the industry didn't refrain from writing the stuff.

Copyright is certainly a major market convenience, because it means
that individual authors, middlemen, and readers don't have to
negotiate contracts each time they trade information for money,
or having to read the annoying shrink-wrap licenses on books
the way they did for a while on packaged software.  It also
makes it more difficult for alternative mechanisms to evolve,
because it's got an 800-pound well-armed gorilla subsidizing it.


>Those who would survive in such a market would be
>the 800-lb gorillas because only they would have the resources 
>to squash the smaller companies.
If I read Mark's note correctly, the gorilla he was talking about
wasn't MicroSloth, it was the government.  We may joke about Gates
being the Evil Empire, but it's clearly a joke; we've seen the real thing.

>Free markets monopolize.
and in a following note, Jim says that that's true mainly for the
long run, not necessarily for the short run.  It's not only incorrect,
especially as expanded upon, it's irrelevant to the moral question.
If your alternatives are free markets, where you and I can 
offer to buy or sell products without anybody beating us up for it,
versus non-free markets, where some gang can beat us up for
not going along with the program (whether the gang is the Mafia,
the Pinkertons, the KGB, or "your neighbors in a democracy"),
there's no question which is morally acceptable - even if the
violence-based market is often more convenient for some goods.

But morality aside,  monopoly, in the sense of a single player
or small group of players domination the sales of a commodity,
is something that can certainly happen in the short run but is
unstable in the long run unless the competition can be prevented
by threats of violence (whether by the monopoly or the government.)
If people are free to offer competing products, maintaining market
share is difficult, and the market leader not only has to contend
with the other big dogs, but with being nipped to death by Chihuahuas,
and with being made obsolete by better technologies.
Who monopolizes tabletop radios these days?  (Who cares?)
Who monopolizes Video Cassette Recorders?  They're both relatively 
free markets, in spite of the FCC's attempts to enforce standards,
and Sony's attempts to monopolize the BetaMax market.
On the other hand, radio and TV broadcasting are near-monopolies,
because the Feds have been "helping" protect our public airwaves.

------------
* Some Libertarians and some Libertarian-bashers will argue that using
government courts to enforce contracts is still hiring the 800-pound 
well-armed gorilla to carry out your private business activities....
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Remember to stay well clear of soft targets as the war with Albania, er,
Iraq starts in the next few weeks.

Yeltsin warns the U.S. publically that an attack on Iraq could have grave
consequences, perhaps even leading to another world war.

He was almost certainly _not_ threatening to use his own nukes against the
U.S.  So what was he talking about?

Maybe he and his intelligence services have a clearer idea of where some of
those 50 to 70 missing suitcase nukes have ended up. Saddam still had a lot
of money even after the Gulf War.

Mightn't he have bought some of those surplus nukes?

Plenty of time over the past couple of years to get them into major U.S.
cities. Especially cities like Washington and New York.

If Iraq's cities and palaces and such are bombed, as expected, he may put
out the order to hit the enemy where it will hurt. A timer set for an hour
and the agents are well away from the blast.

Biological agents are, I think, less likely to do widespread damage. In a
few years, perhaps, when the technology is more widely available, but for
now it looks like U.S.-class bioweapons are not yet available to so-called
terrorists.

Of course, after such an attack, though hundreds of thousands of criminals
may be disposed of in Washington, martial law and a suspension of the
Constitution can be expected. So it won't be all good news. And financial
chaos may reign if business centers are hit.

Downtown Washington is the last place I'd want to be. For multiple reasons.

--Tim May

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 1:31 PM -0800 2/7/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>I live in Adams Morgan, perhaps a mile from downtown Washington. Of course
>I work in the heart of DC, in the lobbyist corridor, blocks from the White
>House and agencies like the FCC. (Note to terrorists: the Pentagon is miles
>away, on the other side of the Potomac. Take the blue or yellow Metro
>lines. You can lug your H-bomb through the handicapped turnstiles for no
>additional fee.)

(Tariq, make note of this!)

>I've tentatively decided against moving all the way to West Virginia, which
>is 60 miles away. I'm now thinking of moving around 40 miles out, close to
>the WV border tho still in Virginia. Main reason is the commute. But it'll
>still be in farm country.

Someplace like Leesburg? Horse country.

>Still, as I've said before, if terrorists are going to blow anything up, it
>makes more sense for them to go after Manhattan. Though it is on an island,
>which might make logistics and escape (?) difficult.

Depends on what the goal is. I would assume Iraq would be a lot more
interested in making a symbolically important statement by hitting the
capital of the Great Satan (Tariq, help me out here).

If the goal is simple disruption of finances, NYC is probably a better goal
(though a hit on D.C. would trigger lots of chaos, too). If the goal is
killing people, I'm not sure what the best target would be...it might be
some other city completely, depending on wind conditions, presence of
refineries and oil storage tanks, dams, etc.

But I would bet on D.C. being Ground Zero for all the various freedom
fighters the U.S. colonialist/paternalistic superpower actions have pissed
off.

Of course, hitting _both_ D.C. and NYC might make a lot of sense.
Especially in case one bomb fizzles. If they have several suitcase nukes,
it makes more sense to deploy them in several cities than to have the damge
zones overlap (or even have one blast affect the later bombs).

Timing could be within seconds easily enough, but even spaced hours apart
there would be virtually no chance for NEST to find them.

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> Depends on what the goal is. I would assume Iraq would be a lot more
> interested in making a symbolically important statement by hitting the
> capital of the Great Satan (Tariq, help me out here).
>
> If the goal is simple disruption of finances, NYC is probably a better goal
> (though a hit on D.C. would trigger lots of chaos, too). If the goal is
> killing people, I'm not sure what the best target would be...it might be
> some other city completely, depending on wind conditions, presence of
> refineries and oil storage tanks, dams, etc.
>
> But I would bet on D.C. being Ground Zero for all the various freedom
> fighters the U.S. colonialist/paternalistic superpower actions have pissed
> off.

NYC is the seat of the United Nations.  It would make a good nuke target
during one of those UN events when a bunch of heads of state visit.

For an impact on the financial markets, nuke NYC and London at least.

NYC is also vulnerable to chemicals in the water system.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 6:12 PM -0800 2/6/98, bill.stewart@pobox.com wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 2/5/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>>If there were no copyright nobody would have any reason to market
>>software or much else for that matter. I would predict that much of
>>the technology and infrastructure we have now wouldn't exist.
>>It would also stiffle [sic] creativity and new methodologies because
>>there would be no profit in it to recoup development costs.
>
>If there were no copyright, markets for information and entertainment
>would definitely have evolved differently than they have in the US
>and Europe, and would use much different mechanisms for getting money
>to the producers of information, such as standard sale contracts.*
....

It's always hard to say how reality would look in a different universe, one
with, say, no copyright laws.

However, we have some indications, because there are some things which are
very much like "intellectual property" which, in fact, have no protection
in the courts.

Namely, _ideas_.

For better or for worse, ideas are not protected against copying, use, etc.

(Before anyone jumps in and cites patents, by "ideas" I mean scientific
discoveries, philosophical expressions, aphorisms, and so on, not
_expressions_ of ideas in the form of working gadgets. And not "software
patents" (with which I disagree, as do many of us). And not _specific_
instances of ideas in the form of essays or stories or whatever, which of
course _can_ be copyrighted.)

In our society, and in all societies with which I'm familiar, having a good
idea is not protectable. (Again, not counting inventions and such.)

And yet society works fine. Those who keep coming up with ideas find ways
to keep coming up with ideas, and often to prosper, as writers,
consultants, etc., often because of their ability to generate ideas.

(There is a radical, and bizarre, subsect of libertarians called
"Galambosians," who argue that even ideas are property. In their view, I
could charge people 10 cents or a dollar or such for their usage of "crypto
anarchy" ideas, or "Big Brother Inside" ideas, or for being influenced by
my ideas in other ways. Hard to enforce, I'd say. Which is probably why the
ideas of Galombos are not copied by many others. In his system, he'd be a
pauper.)

Think about an alternate world where ideas are protectable before saying a
world without copyrights would collapse inevitably.

--Tim May

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 12:02 -0800 2/7/98, Tim May wrote:
>Of course, after such an attack, though hundreds of thousands of criminals
>may be disposed of in Washington, martial law and a suspension of the
>Constitution can be expected. So it won't be all good news. And financial
>chaos may reign if business centers are hit.
>
>Downtown Washington is the last place I'd want to be. For multiple reasons.

I live in Adams Morgan, perhaps a mile from downtown Washington. Of course
I work in the heart of DC, in the lobbyist corridor, blocks from the White
House and agencies like the FCC. (Note to terrorists: the Pentagon is miles
away, on the other side of the Potomac. Take the blue or yellow Metro
lines. You can lug your H-bomb through the handicapped turnstiles for no
additional fee.)

I've tentatively decided against moving all the way to West Virginia, which
is 60 miles away. I'm now thinking of moving around 40 miles out, close to
the WV border tho still in Virginia. Main reason is the commute. But it'll
still be in farm country.

Still, as I've said before, if terrorists are going to blow anything up, it
makes more sense for them to go after Manhattan. Though it is on an island,
which might make logistics and escape (?) difficult.

-Declan