GSM>> Yes. Your house of cards is built on the concept that copyrighted GSM>> material is not intelectual property. In most countries it is. The
IP is a very peculiar concept - it's a property for the thing that is not scarce. You have regular property right on, say, your car because cars are scarce - you can't have them as much as you want without digging up metals and oil and other resources and performing other costly operations on _each_ car - i.e. you can not create a new car easily, so if someone took your car and you would be deprived of the car, you would suffer. However, thoughts are not scarce (at least I hope nobody in whose head they are scarce would read this :) - you can repeat same thought without much effort and if I took a thought from you, you would not suffer any loss - you still had the same one. Thus, concept of property on the thought (which is at base of the most of the IP) is radically different from other kinds of property. Thus, equating violating regular property rights and violating IP rights would just add mess to the discussion - even if we wanted to discourage both, they are different things. GSM>> Just because someone else placed it out on the internet for you to GSM>> steal does not make it right. In this case it would be ok for me to GSM>> walk into your home and clean it out if someone else opened the GSM>> door. If you manage to clean it out and leave everything in place and in precisely the same condition at the same time - why not? If you manage to do so without violating my privacy - I see no problem with that. GSM>> electricity, food, etc. Some people need to make a living and choose GSM>> to do it by their creativity. Just because you don't dosen't give you GSM>> the right to steal from them. The fact that they want to earn their money by some way doesn't give them by itself any right to demand money from anybody. It is true that the state can force people to pay, but this does not _automatically_ means this is just. If you want to prove the need of paying for copyrighted works beyond the trivial point of "it's the law, so shut up and obey or go to jail" - the argument along the lines of "artists like to earn money this way" is no good - I'd like to have a law so that anybody I meet on the street paid me a thousand dollars for "encounter rights" but you would agree that such a law would not be just. Neither legality nor usefulness of a thing to somebody is a proof that this thing is a good thing. You need better proof. GSM>> Do you get payed to program? Please give me the names of three companies GSM>> that paid you to program for them so I can ask for copies of the code. GSM>> After all, since they are not real property, I'm entitled to them. No, you are not. Sunlight is owned by nobody, but that doesn't mean if you want sunlight at night, you are entitled to get it. If you manage to get it - good for you, if you don't - tough luck. GSM>> Absolute ethics? Absolute bullsh*t. As I said at the begining it's GSM>> against the law of the land just about everywhere. If you don't like Law and ethics are different things. In ideal, law should be based on ethics, in practice, they sometimes happen to be the exact opposite... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be counsels taken Stanislav Malyshev /\ Stronger than Morgul-spells phone +972-54-6524945 /\ JRRT LotR. whois:!SM8333 ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
