Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

Ethics of replication

I rediscovered a post from Mark Wooding that I particularly like:

From: mdw.at.nsict.org (Mark Wooding)
Newsgroups: comp.text.pdf,sci.crypt,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FBI - Adobe's lapdogs & government war on citizens
Date: 13 Aug 2001 20:45:40 GMT
Organization: National Society for the Inversion of Cuddly Tigers
Message-ID: <slrn9ngf3k.u7f.mdw@tux.nsict.org>

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Without getting in pejorative terminology, do you think it is kosher to deny or deprive the owner of intellectual property an opportunity to sell it?

Yes. Not every situation is an appropriate sales opportunity.

I'm not qualified to decide on what's kosher, or halal for that matter.

Perhaps if you meant to ask a different question, you should have done.

For example, say you borrow a book from a library (no problem). You make a two hard copies, one for you and one for your friend. Niether he nor you are likely to buy the book since you already have readable copies at hand.

Result. The publisher of the book has probably lost two sales.

I don't follow. First of all, you state that neither I nor my friend are likely to buy the book, since we have a copy at hand (in the library, presumably), and then complain that the publisher has lost sales. But libraries are OK.

And then there's the issue of a `lost' sale. How can it be lost? He never had it in the first place!

And this is the result of "sharing".

If the alternative is Stallman's `Right to Read' world, and we seem to be getting closer to that, uh, `ideal' every day, then count me down for sharing. Or whatever you want to call it.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine you have a replicator, like in Star Trek. It costs about as much as a 100W light bulb to run, and is easy to maintain. It makes copies -- perfect working copies -- of inanimate objects[1]. All it takes is some space, to put the new copy in, and time to scan the original and make the new one. Suppose further that you bought yours from some guy in a corner shop for some small amount of money -- it's no hassle for him: he just replicates 'em, after all, and he's not in it for the money.

Which of these things do you think are morally `wrong', or should be `forbidden'? Justify your answers.

• selling replicators;
• giving replicators away;
• replicating up a small quantity of food to feed a family;
• replicating a friend's lunch (with his permission);
• replicating a friend's watch (with his permission);
• replicating a friend's computer (with his permission);
• replicating a friend's car (with his permission);
• replicating an artwork: (a) some old master, from before we had copyright; (b) some recent piece;
• replicating someone's watch (/without/ permission);
• replicating someone's car (/without/ permission);
• replicating stuff in a supermarket (/without/ permission);
• preventing replication of your private stuff;
• preventing (large scale) replication of food products (e.g., in third world countries).

I think that last is the only one which is actually `wrong' in any obvious way. I can argue for and against the others, but tend to fall in favour or allowing them.

I'm interested in answers from both sides of the debate.

[1] I don't want to get into the ethics of replicating live people, or even animals. We'll allow replication of dead stuff, so food is fair game.

-- [mdw]

posted Sat 15 Nov 2003 in /issues/copyright | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.