Russ Taylor wrote:
>
> On 9/8/00 3:01 PM, Lizard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
>
> >
> >Ah, but the issue isn't what you paid for it -- it's the source.
> >
> >If I pick an apple from a tree in an unclaimed forest, I am taking
> >nothing from anyone, and incur no ethical debt. On the other hand, if
> >someone in an act of generosit gives me an apple he owns, I feel there
> >is an ethical obligation involved -- either to the giver, or, in a
> >spirit of giving, to some other person down the line.
> >
> ><deletia>
>
> Rather funny that your "deletia" included an explanation of how the
> "public domain" is something from everyone, therefore owed back to
> everyone. Culture is a societal debt and obligation, if you believe that
> using something necessarily creates an obligation (I don't).
>
No, it isn't, as I noted elsewhere. There is no such beast as a
'societal debt', nor can there be any obligation to 'society'. SOCIETY
DOES NOT EXIST, apart from the individuals who compose.
> >It is unattractive and unethical, but not illegal.
>
> And why is it unethical to do so with somethingly freely given from
> someone, but not unethical to do so with something freely given by
> society?
Because there is no society, and no choice on the part of this
nonexistent entity to 'give' anything to anyone.
> >But it is not a boon granted by anyone. It's the beginning of property
> >rights.
>
> "Public Domain" use is in fact a boon granted by the government, not an
> implied right.
Incorrect. Basic property rights dictate a creator has a right to
control his creation.
> >That is, ownership is granted by taking unowned material and adding
> >value to it. An empty field, an unmined mountain, or an idea passed into
> >the public domain is material in a state of nature. When you add value
> >to it, you gain rightful ownership of it -- and may then do with it as
> >you please, subject to the usual blend of law and ethics.
>
> Public domain material includes a TREMENDOUS body of work created in this
> lifetime. It's one of the places you can put something you create into
> -- and government material is one of the areas that happens to fall into
> it.
>
> So discard this illusion that public domain material is by anonymous,
> long-dead people. It's a living, breathing body, being added to by
> society each and every day. And as a property owned by everyone, it
> would indeed create an obligation when you draw upon in IF DRAWING FROM
> AN INDIVIDUAL DOES AS WELL.
>
I would say such an obligation is due those who voluntarily place work
into the public domain, but not to such works which simply enter it by
default. However, since current copyright law is such nothing will ever
enter the public domain again unless explicitly placed there, the
distinction is rapidly becoming moot.
> And while you're at it, discard yourself of the notion that no one owns
> that mountain in the state of nature -- property rights are a good deal
> more complicated than that. The "yours if you settle it" doctrine had to
> be granted by the government explicity, it was not that way wihout act of
> congress.
>
Congress merely recognized and codified the pre-existing basis of
ownership. Government exists to codify rights, set penalties for
violating them, settle disputes over their exercise -- it does not
create rights. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men...."
> >I have no more obligation to share with you my take on 'Snow White' than
> >I do to share the takings from a mine I dug myself. However, if I choose
> >to LET you use my property, I feel you have aquired an ethical, though
> >not legal, obligation to pass this along.
>
> And I have no obligation to share my material I created from WotC's
> online policy. I did the work myself, I changed it myself, I wrote the
> web page material myself. The policy says I can't sell it, it doesn't
> say I can't keep it for myself and not let you copy it.
>
True, and this is why the OGL is ethically superior.
> If there's an ethical obligation for using individual or corporate
> property, there's just as much of one for using community or collective
> property. It's that simple. It's a song and dance to claim they are
> different.
There is no such thing as 'collective property'. It's either owned or
unowned. It cannot be 'owned' by nobody.
> >Not really, since you used this argument above when you invoked the
> >cultural gestalt. One cannot 'owe' anything to nonexistent entities,
> >such as 'society', 'the people', 'humankind', etc. Nor can one BE OWED
> >something by same.
>
> Society is nonexistant? Interesting. The founding fathers would love to
> take you up on the idea that no one can "owe a debt" to the people.
>
Indeed? I was unaware Jefferson was a pinko. Where, precisely, is it
stated in any of the major founding documents that the individual exists
to serve the state, rather than vice-versa? I was always taught America
was founded on the premise government is the servant of the citizen.
But this is woefully off-topic.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
