> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think the most important aspect of network service-software is the > user's freedom with his data. This statement emphasizes the > user's ability > to modify the software he is using. This makes sense, as the > statement's > from the FSF, but the most immediate problems affecting users > are whether
It sounds like you are talking about someone's freedom with their data, but you're not. It's not 'their' data, it's just about them. Just as a CD you have does not contain the musician's data, it's simply produced by them. 'Their' as in 'concerning' or 'produced by' should not be confused with 'their' as in denoting ownership. Some musicians say it is important that they have the 'freedom' to control recordings of 'their' music, i.e. not to let you perform or reproduce their music and especially not to let you commercially exploit it. I daresay they'd also be grateful for the 'freedom' to have their music given back to them when they ask for it. Notice how when 'freedom' is on the other foot it doesn't sound so good? It's easy to use 'freedom' as a petulant 'I want'. At some point you've got to stop bandying around this 'freedom' word and decide whether people can or can't own information after they have given it to someone. Either people continue to own information despite communicating it to someone else and copyright is fine and dandy, or they don't, and people can keep their little black book secret from you, even if they do have your telephone number in it that you've now forgotten. Which is it? I suggest that natural law provides the wisest arbitration. For example, let us imagine someone tells you that as a service they will let you communicate information to them, for them to record (in confidence), and for them to communicate back to you whenever you wish. Their reputation may be damaged if they break the terms of their service, but you have no right to violate their privacy to inspect their records in search of 'your' information, nor a right to constrain their liberty (freedom of speech) to further communicate 'your' information to anyone they fancy. These things are matters of trust. Trust and confidence may be broken without legal penalty, but liberty and privacy are inalienable. If you want to own information, keep it to yourself (in your private domain) - you can't own the copies you give to others or allow others to make. Of course, you could lobby the legislature to enact such privileges, but privileges aren't rights. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
