response 58 of 206:

Sep 9 16:02 UTC 2000

I said nothing about Ken's ethics in #52: I was only responding to his
"absolutist" stance, that ethics of "property rights" somehow have an
origin other than humans at some time deciding predominantly that that
was useful (to them). The "hypocrisy and demagogery" lie in using an
absolutist stance for which there is no evidence to further his arguments.
(But I'll settle for it being just one of the two... 8^}). 

I think md gets a little carried away in #56 in making a comparison
between copyright laws, and laws that intimidate, oppress, or make
criminal, basic human rights. Is copying of copyrighted material a "basic
human right"? Laws concerning *property*, tangible or intellectual, are
the proper sphere for debate and amendment. There are no *absolutely
correct laws* in all matters of property, but only laws arrived at by
disputation and democratic processes. Society is in jeopardy when laws
arrived at by these processes are ignored or violated, when there are
means to redress errors in laws by said processes. 

How many here that think nothing of violating laws on copyright - whatever
they may be - also drive through stop signs without stopping?