Economics, advanced manufacturing techniques and space settlements

Bill wrote:

>> To some extent this can be evolutionary: i.e. somebody puts a crude
>> 'blueprint' on the net, somebody else tries it and then puts
>> their own improvements up... etc. etc.
>>
>> i.e. open source machines
>
> This is a good idea and I'd love to see it in place, but up until now
> the blue prints for the machinery that are in the public domain, ie
> the cotton gin, the spinning jenny, the printing press, etc.. can't be
> found on the internet. You can find drawings and infer blue prints,
> but this isn't possible for anything very complicated.

Probably true. However the internet has a way of ratcheting
up the quality of freely available information that is
available; and not in an illegal or imoral way usually-
a lot of people are proud of their knowledge and tend
to give it away.

Basically like the design of most common designs like
an axe or a pencil or a book, this makes more technology
available for others to use.

I would argue that this will happen with 'blueprints' as you
put it for nano and macro machinery also.

>>> Finally, the first nanomachines are going to be built by someone, who
>>> will own them and all the other ones replicated. Also it can
>>> easily be
>>> shown anything the nanomachines build will be his property,
>>> providing
>>> he survives the court cases for when his machines violate other
>>> peoples property rights.

That's a big supposition that he will survive violating
someone elses copyright or patent. Personally I don't think
that that will work at all; that is exactly the point of
copyrights- only the owner has the right to copy an
object or drawing or an embodyment of that.

>> Are books owned by the person who made the printing press,
>> rather than the person who owns the pring press? I don't think so.
>>
>
> Actually books are owned by their writers unless the writer gives
> copyrights to the publisher.

Yes. But the way that works is that the publishers always
insist that the rights get signed to them before agreeing
to publish. If the writer refuses to do this, there is
nothing that the publisher can do except ask for their
advance back (roughly speaking.)

> That is not what I meant. I meant the physical item created by the
> nanomachine will be owned by the person who created the nanomachines,
> since he owned the tools to make it, and pursumably the raw materials
> and intellectual property and energy used by the nanomachines. Who
> else could claim the property and have it hold up in court?

The copyright holder. You're really not tracking this.

>> (Well, actually it depends on the contract that you bought the
>> equipment under, but contracts that don't give you rights
>> to what you make using equipment probably don't sell too
>> well.)
>
> Actually the normal method is for a company to own the equipment to
> make the something and contract out the service of making it.
>
> But if I owned a machine capable of building anything, I would be
> selling its services not the machine itself. You come to me and ask
> for a widget, I give you price, money exchanges hands, and the widget
> is created for you.

The copyright owner would have to wave his copyright for that
to happen.

>>> What about intellectual property. Can a nanomachine download a
>>> blueprint without paying royalties.
>>
>> Depends on the licencing and policing of the licence of the
>> blueprint.
>>
>
> That isn't an answer. The answer is no. Just like its illegal for you
> to download the latest mp3, you can't download blue prints unless you
> have explicit permission of the owner.

It isn't illegal to download an mp3. It depends on the licence
the mp3 was distributed under. Owners of copyright can wave
it (apparently you are unaware of this.)

That's what a licence does. It gives the permission of the
copyright owner to allow someone else to copy or use the code,
file or whatever only under certain situations.

> Before you start screaming about open source, read the GPL. It
> explicitly gives permission for the property to be used under very
> stringent conditions.

I wouldn't describe them as stringent. They're only stringent
if you are trying to steal code off the guy who originally wrote
the software. If you're a thief they're stringent. If you want
to improve the code, then you are able to.

> It is taylored explicitly to software. It in
> theory can be used for blueprints without modification, but it does
> state you will be providing these blueprints, any modifications, etc
> .... back to the community.

Yes, I've studied the GPL, I've even written and distributed
software under it. And I have used GPL software as part of
my salaried employment for most of my career. In my
experience it tends to be pretty good.

The GPL idea can be applied to any copyright situation I
believe, including blueprints. Of course it doesn't have
to, as the licencing is upto to the copyright owner.