> Intellectual property is what makes it possible for intelligent people to
> support themselves by using their intelligence. The desire to earn a
living
> is *not* just wanton greed. It is, in fact, the moral basis for the
concept
> of intellectual property.
You missed my point. The idea that one has a right to earn a living by
suppressing the "intellectual property" of others is as misguided as napster
users who believe that they have a right to duplicate copyrighted materials.
Everybody wants to earn a living. Bill Gates is earning a living, and I'm
sure that he doesn't think of himself as being greedy. In fact, Microsoft
needs to be a monopoly in order to survive. If the "desire for survival"
is a moral basis, then why is the US government trying to stop Microsoft
from being a monopoly?
But that is what "intellectual property" means! It means that you have a
monopoly over a particular idea. No one else can use that idea to make
money except you.
If you believe that the act of surviving is self-justified, then you must
believe that there's nothing wrong with a bank robber who robbed a bank
because he needs to feed his family. I happen to disagree. The ends do
not justify the means.
> support my children, etc. Therefore, I sell the software I create in
order
> to meet these basic human needs. In this context, giving away the results
> of my hard work would be immoral because it would deprive me and my family
> of the ability to live.
Then you would agree with me that it would be immoral for a bank robber NOT
to rob a bank, because by not robbing a bank, he would be depriving himself
and his family of the ability to live.
> Whether you like it or not, nearly 100% of the people in this world
believe
> in, and organize their lives around, the concepts of money, property, etc.
> IF we lived on some other planet, THEN perhaps money would be unimportant.
I'm not saying that money is unimportant. What I'm saying is that I
believe everyone should have equal chance of making money. The existence
of an "intellectual property" effectively destroys this equality and limits
one philosophical freedom.
> None of the above should be construed to mean that you are not entitled to
> your own opinion. However, you are not entitled to engage in criminal
> activity, regardless of whatever you happen to believe.
How convenient it is for the government to define what is criminal and what
is not. If there's one thing that the government is good at, it is making
the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Herry
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
