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
Bean & Bean Cotton Company
Peach Orchard, MO
www.beancotton.com
www.beanformissouri.org
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|