| PvK |
December 4th, 2003 03:40 AM |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.
I offer the usual quote from Thomas Jefferson on this topic:
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property."
|
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">PvK
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's try this again...
Definition of "steal" from www.m-w.com:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard
|
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Look at 1a. It would imply that downloading a song you have no right to own is stealing it. "to take or appropriate without right or leave" directly applies, as you have no right to take that music, as you did not pay for it. "with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" also applies because you have no right to make use of or to keep the illegal copies of the song. How this does not add up to theft (which is just stealing in a different word) is incomprehensible to me. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
[ December 04, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: PvK ] |
