[free-sklyarov] Limited and Unlimited Resources

[DeBug]

There is one fundamental law (without inner contradiction)
This is the RIGHT TO USE(consume) AND COMPETE(produce,work) law (/ means both and & or )
   everyone is free to use/compete as he likes if that doen not
   restrict anybody else right to use/compete with the same/other
   product/person

This law can be separated into two parts:
1) The right to use
2) The right to compete

1) means everyone is free to use as he/she likes if that doen not
   restrict anybody else right to use the same or other product
2) means everyone is free to compete as he/she likes if that doen not
   restrict anybody else right to compete with him/her or others
   
If it is separated into two parts 1) and 2)
then those parts are incomplete and has inner contradictions
(this is because on the one hand products can be used as means to compete
 and on the other hand in competition new products are produced)

If all people understood this and accepted the use & compete law
and followed it then this we would really have no
copyrights, usage control, competition control problems and probablly
we would not have wars and very likely civilization would benefit more
than we can imagine.

Now I have got the following letter from JN:
JN> I have also toyed with the idea that all IP (copyrights and patents) be abolished.
JN> The sticking point, for me, is that developers should be able to control their
JN> products, since they had the right to choose not to make them in the first place.
JN>  If it weren't for the original developer's effort, the product would not have happened
JN> and the needs of people would not have been met. I agree that if you look at the
JN> situation after the work is completed, it appears that a copyright-holder is
JN> witholding a valuable good from people, unless they pay to use it. But that good did
JN> not exist before the copyright-holder produced it. He could have chosen not to do the
JN> work at all, and then nobody would have had the benefit, whether they were willing to
JN> pay or not. Since he chose to do the work, he gets to decide how it is used. Don't
JN> like it? You are free to write your own (computer program, book, etc.) that competes
JN> with his.
Three major mistakes in the flow of thoughts of JN
1)
JN> developers should be able to control their
JN> products, since they had the right to choose not to make them in the first place.
Developers have the right to produce and use but they still have no right
to point how other people use or reverse-produce. This is because
other people do not damage your original product (so no violation of
usage right) and they do not restrict you in your production process
(so no violation in competition right). The fact you did something in
the past have nothing to do with what we have now no matter how little
time have past or do yo uwant to say you are the one to decide
for how long your copyrights should be protected ?

2)
JN> If it weren't for the original developer's effort, the product would not have happened
JN> and the needs of people would not have been met.
The fact you decided do not produce does not mean there will not be
interested people who will produce it (maybe even for free)
So the needs of people will be met in one or other way
(at least needs of those who feel the need for the product)

3)
JN> Since he chose to do the work, he gets to decide how it is used.
JN> And i must disagree, because this way of thinking has inner contradiction
And here is the essence of copyrights - protect investments.
However it turned out to be the wrong way to protect.
US pharmaceutic company invested a lot of effort and money to produce
drugs against AIDS (to prolong life). No one forces them to give out
secrets. But if they publish the information how to produce the drug
(in other words they want to patent it) then public must say:
Wait we cannot protect your patent because people in africa are dying
and need these drags badly. And there are volunteers who can produce
these drugs very cheap or even for free. Nobody gonna stop them.
So public cannot garantee return of investments to copyright-holder.

US pharmaceutic company does not get their use & compete right
restricted or violated and dying people has the right to use patent
and volunteers have the right to compete.
if US pharmaceutic company claims to decide who and how can use patent
then it would restrict the right to use and compete of those
interested in it and that is definitly going to cause a conflict.

What i say is that it is consumers and only they who have the right to decide
what should be produced for them and what should not
(it is their right to use). And if you decide to produce
something (it is your right) without public guarantee that it will be useful and used
and paid then it is up to you to take the risks.
So either you get paid in advance or you take the risks yourself.
I also agree that people should be encouraged to invest
their money in usefull businesses and should be encouraged to share the risks
but they should not be forced (let's say by copyrights) because this
is against their right to use.

By applying copyrights state forces people (violates their right to
use& compete) to share the risks of manufacturers decisions.
If people are reach enough they can admit it (by free will)
countrywide but if people do not have enough money they refuse to
share the risks. That's why copyrights are violated mostly
by countries with difficult economic situation

Once again if we do not accept and obey the RIGHT TO USE AND COMPETE law
(with that "if that doen not restrict ..." ) we are potencially running into conflict.

-- 
Best regards,
 DeBug                            mailto:debug at centras.lt