Re: whether cuecats are a public good

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Karl Anderson (
Date: Tue Oct 03 2000 - 17:10:03 PDT

"Lisa Dusseault" <> writes:

> You may be onto something, Jim, though I'm not sure about the terminology.
> As I understand it, a "public good" is defined by economists to be a good
> which cannot be provided to a limited set of people for a fee; it must
> either be provided to everybody in a set/region or nobody. Thus oxygen in
> air is a public good; less pollution in air/water is a public good.
> Some information is a public good. Information that cannot be hidden
> easily, like how to make a pipe bomb, is a public good (or bad, depending on
> how you look at it). Copyright and NDAs and these kinds of contracts are
> the only things that keep information from being a public good.

Or encryption, and an incentive to keep it from spreading (or a
barrier). So is a broadcast TV signal a public good, but a scrambled
cable signal not one?

What if you dumped millions of something from a plane, is it a public
good then? Cause that's what Digital Convergence has done, more or

Jim, you said that the hackers have decided to bypass the licensing &
treat it as a public good (or, rather, treat the function and use of
the cuecat as a public good, not just the dongle, which is what
Digital Convergence wants), but from what I've read, there hasn't been
an applicable license to bypass. Their EULA is broken.

Karl Anderson 

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 16:37:13 PDT