Professor Moglen said:

No one proposes forcing you to share anything you have created, whether valuable or mere rubbish. I have said, and will show the basis for concluding, two other things: (1) Under twenty-first century conditions, sharing cannot be prohibited with any degree of effectiveness; and (2) for digital goods with zero marginal cost, sharing either makes inherently superior goods, or results in inherently superior distribution, depending on the nature of the goods themselves, and thus over time shared goods produced or distributed anarchistically, without ownership, tend to outcompete and replace proprietary goods produced by capitalism. So the argument you are proposing to refute here on grounds of your superior prudence is irrelevant, and the congratulations you are awarding yourself for being smarter than I am are slightly premature.

My thoughts:

1. No one is forcing you to share...

- Does my sharing of my knowledge depend on the willingness of others to share their knowledge? If so, in an environment where no one is sharing, say in the production of new drugs or vaccines (assuming no sharing is done during the research process, but sharing is done during the patent application process), will I share (during the research process) in order to induce others to sharing? If so, will I share only in bits and pieces, and then stop sharing when others do not share? But if I behave this way, I am not truly after the solution to the problem I am researching. I suppose I would be interested in sharing only when I can no longer solve the problem on my own and am at the point when the collaboration of others is needed. If so, it does not do me any good to share just bits and pieces, because doing so will not help me find a solution to the problem I am researching. Plus, I don't really need to induce others to sharing their information. I want them to help me with my own problem! Why should I care if they don't share their stuff? I'm not concerned with their knowledge. In sharing my information therefore, I am motivated by purely selfish motives (I want someone to help me solve the problem I am researching) rather than altruistic reasons (since sharing a history of failed research results will be of limited use).

- when Professor Moglen says that "Under twenty-first century conditions, sharing cannot be prohibited with any degree of effectiveness," does he limit this to mean that the "physical" act of sharing cannot be prohibited effectively? Because if I am a junior chemist working in a drug company Fyser, I can be contractually bound not to share any information that I gain in my research. I can be dismissed from work if I violate this, and I can be slapped with a suit. I will have that dismissal on my record permanently and whenever I apply for work, I will always be asked, "Why'd you leave Fyser?" and I'd say "Um, I was let go, for sharing information." So while the sharing of information/results/data cannot be prohibited with any degree of effectiveness, isn't it that the consequences of doing so can effectively prohibit someone from sharing this information?

2. For digital goods with zero marginal cost, sharing either makes inherently superior goods...

- just to clarify, can we consider the formula of a drug of a vaccine a "digital good with zero marginal cost" (since it can be shared over Google docs for example). I thought that the course is "Law in the Information Society" but I think that doesn't exclude non-software goods which can still be digitized (since I think we can treat the course as "how should the laws of society change, given that we now live in an information society; that the world as we knew it has ended?")

3. ...tend to outcompete and replace proprietary goods produced by capitalism.

- but currently, in producing drugs, we still need to rely on capitalism (say, Fyser company) to provide funds to test the drugs? How does Professor Moglen see this changing? I am not aware of the costs involved in producing software, but my thinking is that it costs more to create a new drug than a new software? And will drugs created under theory of anarchic production (no one owns the means of production) be allowed in the market, where liability cannot be pinned down on one single responsible person (e.g. Fyser)? Or will anarchic production lead to each and every person involved in the production process to be liable, where a cause of action for liability arises? If so, will fear of being held responsible for liability deter persons working in the drug industry from adopting the theory of anarchic production?

-- AllanOng - 04 Oct 2009