|
Grex > Music3 > #178: The Eighteenth "Napster" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 41 of 72:
| 
May 5 13:15 UTC 2004 |
Some people deny not just that intellectual property has no value, but htat
it does not exist. I believe Richard Stallman, the FSF of which he is a part,
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are three groups of them.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 72:
|
May 5 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 43 of 72:
|
May 5 14:56 UTC 2004 |
Heh.
I presume witting=willing?
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 72:
|
May 5 15:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 72:
|
May 5 16:14 UTC 2004 |
> (178) #40/44: David Brodbeck (gull) Wed, May 5, 2004 (09:04)
> Are you arguing that intellectual property has no value? Or just that
> "theft" is the wrong word?
In an argument it's traditional to respond to what your opponent wrote
rather than try to deduce telepathically what he meant and argue against
that. If you want to have a useful argument on this topic, don't start
by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is an "information
wants to be free" Slashbot.
I think I've quite clearly limited my objections to the misuse of the
term "theft." I don't see how I could have been any clearer, nor do I
see how you could deduce from what I have written that I am "arguing that
intellectual property has no value." Clearly it has value -- it is
bought and sold, is it not? The term "intellectual property" is a bit
of a misnomer, though, in my opinion.
Allow me to ask my question again: in the infringing case from the
two scenarios I outlined in a previous response, *what* has been stolen?
|
gregb
|
|
response 46 of 72:
|
May 5 16:24 UTC 2004 |
You have denied the profit that would have otherwise been made.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 72:
|
May 5 16:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 48 of 72:
|
May 5 16:36 UTC 2004 |
I'd like someone to go into RIAA headquarters and check
all their computer software to be properly licensed.
|
twenex
|
|
response 49 of 72:
|
May 5 16:37 UTC 2004 |
Good idea.
We at grex come up with SO many good ones, don't we?
|
gull
|
|
response 50 of 72:
|
May 5 22:37 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:45: Sorry. It's just that 99% of the time when I have this
argument, it *is* with someone who believes "information wants to be
free" and should never be bought or sold, only given away.
|
twenex
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
May 5 22:52 UTC 2004 |
Which is a valid opinion, like most others.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
May 5 23:01 UTC 2004 |
I don't think it's a valid opinion, personally. But then, most of the
people I know rely, in some form or other, on intellectual property to
make a living.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
May 5 23:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 54 of 72:
|
May 5 23:43 UTC 2004 |
<twenex grins>
|
mcnally
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
May 5 23:44 UTC 2004 |
re #51: By your definition, what would be an example of an invalid opinion?
|
twenex
|
|
response 56 of 72:
|
May 5 23:55 UTC 2004 |
Depends mostly on the mores of the time, I suppose. For example, I suspect
most people nowadays would accept that it's wrong to murder people, or to
commit child rape. Since the vast majority of people in that society agree
on it, then anyone's opinion to the contrary is not valid: we lock people up
who exercise their "right" to rape or murder. Similarly, achievement of
political ends by violent means is also not condoned. Therefore anyone who
professes that it is acceptable is also expressing an "invalid" opinion.
Another way to approach it would be to say that an opinion that is clearly
contrary to established and demonstrable fact is invalid, such as the belief
that the world is fla; or, if it could be proven that 81% of people in the
UK were against the abolition of the monarchy, then to say that 75% of them
are in favour would clearly be "an invalid opinion".
|
marcvh
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
May 6 00:18 UTC 2004 |
I'd more say that an invalid opinion is one which simply makes no sense,
assumes facts not in evidence, displays unsound reasoning, is
hypocritical, etc.
Valid opinion:
The monarchy should be abolished because it is an antiquated
remnant of divine authority, and is today merely an expensive tradition
and frequent source of embarassment.
Invalid opinions:
The monarchy should be abolished because fish swim.
The monarchy should be abolished because the Queen is a three-headed
space alien attempting to subvert human authority.
The monarchy should be abolished because power, like information, wants
to be free.
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 72:
|
May 6 00:24 UTC 2004 |
Re: #57. The first paragraph is a succinct version of #56. I really must try
to be mre to the point.
I'm not at all convinced that the one about the Queen having three heads would
be invaldi, if the Queen did indeed have 3 heads.
Information DOES want to be free, as in "freely available". Assuming "free"
in this context to mean "free of charge" or "at no cost to the consumer, or
profit to the provider, of information", is a common mistake we ALWAYS have
to keep banging on about to drum into people's heads. It's ironic that the
language which arguably displays the greatest propensity of all known
languages to borrow words expressing concepts which it lacks has not yet
borrowed a word to simply and unambigously represent the concept of "free"
as in "freedom", or "at liberty". Spanish and German both have it ("libre"
in the first case, and "frei" in the second, where "no cost" is respectively
"gratis" and "kostenlos").
|
remmers
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
May 6 12:32 UTC 2004 |
Or as Richard Stallman puts it, there's a distinction between "free
speech" and "free beer".
|
twenex
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
May 6 13:41 UTC 2004 |
Indeed.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
May 6 15:52 UTC 2004 |
When I saw him speak once, he spent the entire speech digging energetically
for a gold nugget, which was apparently buried deep inside his ass.
|
twenex
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
May 6 15:55 UTC 2004 |
rotfl.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
May 9 02:50 UTC 2004 |
Information does "want to be free." That's why copyright law was
established in the first place. Property rights subsist only in the
physical copies you own. Nothing in property right prevents somebody
else, who has legitimately acquired a copy, from making their own and
selling them.
But this was clearly unfair to the original author. So this artificial
beastie, copyright law, was invented as a fair compromise. This worked
until the Mickey Mouse Protection Act came along.
I'm equally appalled at the people who say there should be no
copyright - who want to return us to an ugly state of nature - and the
people who want to make copyright a permanent property right - which is
insane. If copyright were permanent, who are the legal heirs of
Cicero? I might want to quote him sometime.
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
May 9 04:35 UTC 2004 |
Indeedy. Opponents and freeloaders of open source and free software alike
should note that Linux is copyright Linus Torvalds.
|
gregb
|
|
response 65 of 72:
|
May 10 15:12 UTC 2004 |
It it's Open Source, how can they be freeloaders?
|