Another excellent reason why laws for software need rewriting
s_fsfeurope2 at nedprod.com
Tue Sep 9 21:33:22 UTC 2003
On 9 Sep 2003 at 20:48, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-09 19:38:34 +0100 Niall Douglas <s_fsfeurope2 at nedprod.com>
> wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/32730.html
> This is an article headlined "Outsourcing: does it reward theft?"
> which describes a poor situation of licence compliance amongst
> outsourced service providers. It questions why BigCorp doesn't
> require licence compliance from its providers, but will still act
> against anyone infringing its licences.
> Quite a fun read, but the answer seems blindingly obvious: perceived
Well no - you're kinda missing the root cause of all outsourcing -
it's not just about maximising monetary profit. It's also about
maximising the flow of money up to the least number of people
possible - or what is more commonly called "increased productivity".
Or the precise opposite of the trickle down effect.
> The solution is also good, as Niall seems to say: change the rules of
> the game.
Kinda like my other simple change in economic policy - tax all
transport by 1000 to 10000% or more. Now no more agricultural
subsidies needed, environment pollution, displacement of third world
population to the west, third world famine would all be substantially
reduced and industrial efficiency of production would rise massively.
But I'd guess less people will agree with my latter point :). Just
got books from Gregory Bateson today, at least from the introductions
they look like sterling stuff.
Anyway, back to on topic, what annoys me is that that article will be
used as a reason for *increasing* IP "protection" ie; further
draconian "enhancements" to antique book publishing laws and I bet
software patents too. Ho hum! :(
More information about the Discussion