Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Before responding to Larry

Subject: [OM] Re: Before responding to Larry
From: keith_w <keith_w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:26:39 -0700
Barry B. Bean wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:42:53 +0200, Manuel Viet wrote:
> 
> 
>> Le mardi 25 Juillet 2006 20:54, Barry B. Bean a écrit :
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:26:56 +0200, Manuel Viet wrote:
>>>> No. That's not technicaly correct. Thieves take away a possession. You
>>>> can't use it anymore once it's been stolen. Unlawful copies, on the other
>>>> hand, don't deprive the copyright holder of his property, because he can
>>>> still claim ownership, and act as a master.
>>> There's more than one type of thief. Ultimately, a thief is someone who
>>> takes something (anything) without permission or authority to do so. The
>>> simple version: If it isn't yours, don't take it. This isn't rocket
>>> science.
> 
>> Exactly, this is law science, not rocket science ; because rocket science 
>> lives in a realm of truth and false, while law science merely address right 
>> and wrong, and there's no match between those groups, only partial overlaps 
>> when you're lucky. 
> 
> If we're dealing with right and wrong, then there's no question whatsoever. 
> Stealing is wrong. If you don't have permission or authority to use a piece 
> of software, distribute copies of music or 
> literature, or similar pieces of intellectual property and you do so, then 
> you're stealing. Morally, ethically, and legally, you're wrong. 
> 
>> The type of reasoning 
>> you're using is called "analogy", and is absolutely prohibited in criminal 
>> trials, because it's the bed of all abuses. 
> 
> No, Copyright law is clear. There's no analogy required or involved.
> 
>>>> That's why intellectual property is a State temporary privilege, it's not
>>>> like the property of a 'real' thing. In the copy process the owner still
>>>> has the use of the copied thing.
>>> Spoken like someone who never created anything in his life.
> 
>> That, excuse me, but you don't know ;
> 
> I do know. Thats what it sounds like to me. 
> 
>> but as you raise the topic, what have 
>> you exactly created on your own ? 
> 
> A great deal. I've published software, am a freelance writer, am a musician, 
> and a photographer. Over the past 20 years, I've paid many a bill and bought 
> many a meal with my intellectual property. 
> When my intellectual property is distributed without my permission, someone 
> is taking money from my pocket.
> 
>> You know, I've been working in research at university, where I did create 
>> things, with others ;
> 
> If this is the case, them you have a contract with your employer that clearly 
> defines ownership of your research. 
> 
>> but when you're a true scientist, the 2 most important 
>> things you learn is that your contribution is just a step in a thousand 
>> miles 
>> journey and that there's more for others to discover ahead than what's 
>> behind. 
> 
> This is all beside the point. Even "true scientists" have to eat. Whether you 
> recognize the heuristic process or not has nothing to do wit whether others 
> can plaigiarize your work or publish your 
> research without your permission.
> 
>> To believe the world owes you a reward is just infatuation.
> 
> We live in a capitalistic society. People get paid for their work. You 
> wouldn't suggest that a field laborer, carpenter, or cook is "infatuated" 
> (btw - do you know what that word means?) if they expect 
> to be paid for what they do, would you? So why should a scientist, author, 
> musician, or software developer work for free?
> 
> 
> --
> Barry B. Bean

Well said, Barry.

keith whaley

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz