Dear Barry,
I enjoyed your reply and I think I understand where you are coming
from, but I'm afraid that it has some fundamental flaws. It uses alot
of 'common-sense' arguments, which like all common-sense logic, they
are very superficial and rather biased to be convincing.
Just one example, you say:
>> If we're dealing with right and wrong, then there's no question
whatsoever. Stealing is >> >> wrong.
I'm sorry but things are not so simple. What is considered stealing in
one place or epoch is not in another, nonetheless, its meaning changes
continuously! They are socially constructed, both the meaning of our
behaviours and the social response to it..
To make it more clear think for example "killing". Is killing wrong?
Sure, you might say... but is it wrong in a war? Ooops.. now we can
all start to see how complicated things are! ..
Then think about Law. It is also a social construct, it does not
represent some straight-cut morality (which is very elusive and
subjective and contextual as we saw above). What it does represent is
a conflict of ideas, distinct interests and the power of certain
groups to establish or negotiate their social power... and their
meanings! See for example the recent news: strong states or strong
social actors re-modell continuously the national and international
Law in a way that can justify stealing, killing, exploitation etc, or
often label it in better words.
Even the 'right of property' that you seem to take it for granted, is
a social construct, a very recent one in fact. 'Owenership' was
constructed lately, in historical terms, as the fundamental base of
western societies... and certainly it does not entail anything natural
or moral or immoral in itself.. In fact many people would say that as
many advantages has brought to the world, so many -if actually not
more- are its unjust and dangerous consequences...
All this, makes clear that there are no black and white sides, as you
seem to believe. In fact there are conflicting normative perspectives,
different viewpoints and interests and a constant conflict of (social)
power on establishing things and their meaning.
Accordingly, I'll be very very sceptical to judge Larry's or anyone's
acts in a simplistic way. I'll rather try to understand the context,
the available and existing choices, the realistic benefits or harm
produced... and then decide... Certainly I won't be in a hurry. The
big corporations, and anyone who shares their ideas or interests,
might want the world made of passive consumers, where everyone buys
ONE item of EVERYTHING and replaces it EVERY year, but that is not
necessarily right or desirable.
As Manuel did, I also try to stress the pecularities, the nuances and
delicate balances entailed in the Law, which can not be reduced in a
simplistic 'this is stealing' or 'this is wrong'. All that means that
we need to read the specific letter of the Law in each case, and even
more: have a very broad and sceptical understanding of social life and
its processes.
Finally, one other thing you seem to underestimate in Manuel's
argument is the social benefits involved in relaxed conditions about
intellectual properties. Just to offer an example and finish here: If
the internet was patented by its creator, you and me and all of us we
were probably not going to have this inspiring discussion :)
friendly regards
Christos
On 7/27/06, Barry B. Bean <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>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.
[...]
>>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.
>>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?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|