seriously, you need to go back and look at the history of intellectual property. copyright is only a few hundred years old, before which all the foundations of our societies were laid.
"Just about everything you see around you is the result of a system based on compensating people for their efforts, thoughts, and inventions"
of course, but why do you think that the only form of compensation revolves around the restriction of intellectual property? this just isnt supported by history.
are you REALLY equating the act of downloading a file without the file creators permission with enslaving a person, stipping them of all their free will and forcing them to do work against their will? this analagy just holds no water. why dont you stick to logic rather that obfuscating the holes in your argument with layers apon layers of unrelated, broken analagies.
...instead of defending the ones we've taken apart.
If someone says "I'll play my song for you at your party, but you must pay me $20 per hour for my time", you're obliged to either pay them or they're not obliged to show up. You cannot take what someone else is offering without paying them what they're asking for it. If you do, you're stealing."
"It is the same way with any human (or group of humans) that has a skill that is in demand. Do you work for free? You must perform some work to pay for your car, apartment, etc. How would you like it if someone took your skills and failed to pay you? Oh, I forget, stealing is only okay when it happens to other people."
both of these examples would be a breach of contract, not a theft. do you not understand the difference?
"If you believe that all science is motivated by altruism, you're the one living in a sheltered dreamworld"
no. aparently you arnt able to comprehend my argument. if you go back reread the full text of my comment you might notice that i gave mention of how indeed science has managed to get funding throughout the ages without needing copyright and patent monopolies. so what's changed this century? why suddently do people like you claim that there can be no funding of arts and sciences without copyrights and patents?
science and art will progress without copyrights and patents just like it has for all of human history.
"So if I hire you and allow you to work for me for two weeks, but then deny you a paycheck, I haven't stolen anything from you, have I?"
this is not theft, its breach of contract. major distinction.
i'm really sorry that your arguments are so weak that you feel have to resort to blatant ad hominem attacks. very nice. when you feel like growing up and discussing as adults, drop me an email.
"That falls under the realm of something you can't avoid, and you have no active control over not hearing the music. If you choose to be within aural range of the music and don't wish to wear earplugs, you have to hear it. You don't have a choice in the matter."
well, what if you *choose* to stand next to that car? are you stealing from anyone? no. thats rediculous. what you are talking about is legislating what information a person is allowed to learn, which is a really scary concept.
"Okay, you've just removed the primary motivation to find the cure in the first place."
if you honestly beleive that money is the primary motive behind science you are much more sheltered and ignorant than i had thought. ahve you met and talked with many scientist? furthermore, its amazingly short sited to think that granting monopolies on information is the only viable method of funding science. all you have to do is look how far science, art and literature progressed before IP laws existed. public and private grants have been happily funding the progression of the arts and science for millenia, so why do some people suddenly think that IP monopolies are the only method of funding?
"Why bother researching ANYTHING anymore (faster processors, better food, space travel) when there's no way you can ever recoup your costs for it?"
why bother implementing an entire OS and give it away for free? your suggestion that people wouldnt innovate if it wernt for a cash insintive is laughable and has been proven wrong by people deeds throughout all of history. but i suppose its a little to challenging to look past the last century in this debate.
to paraphrase you: its theft because you stole it.
what beautifully circular logic. just because the law saws something doesnt make that moral, right or rational.
walking by a car that is blasting the latest p. diddy song is "enjoying the fruits of someone else's labors" without paying them for the priveledge, and to call that theft is laughable. downloading an mp3 bears much more resemblance to this example than taking a piece of property from someone.
i have never seen a convincing arguement that aquiring information is theft, because its an impossible argument. theft implies the deprivation of something, and information can be copied infinitely to only gain.
stretching the laws of physical property to ideas is so rediclously flawed.
did you notice that they dont put all their employees address on that same page so you can share your opinion with them? if anyone feels like putting together a similar list of ibphoenix empoloyees contact information i think it would be only fair.
Slashdot Mirror
seriously, you need to go back and look at the history of intellectual property. copyright is only a few hundred years old, before which all the foundations of our societies were laid. "Just about everything you see around you is the result of a system based on compensating people for their efforts, thoughts, and inventions" of course, but why do you think that the only form of compensation revolves around the restriction of intellectual property? this just isnt supported by history.
are you REALLY equating the act of downloading a file without the file creators permission with enslaving a person, stipping them of all their free will and forcing them to do work against their will? this analagy just holds no water. why dont you stick to logic rather that obfuscating the holes in your argument with layers apon layers of unrelated, broken analagies.
...instead of defending the ones we've taken apart.
If someone says "I'll play my song for you at your party, but you must pay me $20 per hour for my time", you're obliged to either pay them or they're not obliged to show up. You cannot take what someone else is offering without paying them what they're asking for it. If you do, you're stealing."
"It is the same way with any human (or group of humans) that has a skill that is in demand. Do you work for free? You must perform some work to pay for your car, apartment, etc. How would you like it if someone took your skills and failed to pay you? Oh, I forget, stealing is only okay when it happens to other people."
both of these examples would be a breach of contract, not a theft. do you not understand the difference?
"If you believe that all science is motivated by altruism, you're the one living in a sheltered dreamworld" no. aparently you arnt able to comprehend my argument. if you go back reread the full text of my comment you might notice that i gave mention of how indeed science has managed to get funding throughout the ages without needing copyright and patent monopolies. so what's changed this century? why suddently do people like you claim that there can be no funding of arts and sciences without copyrights and patents? science and art will progress without copyrights and patents just like it has for all of human history.
sorry man, of course mp3 sharing is *illegal* but that has no bearing weather or not it is *moral*. for proof, see Slavery.
"So if I hire you and allow you to work for me for two weeks, but then deny you a paycheck, I haven't stolen anything from you, have I?" this is not theft, its breach of contract. major distinction.
"In your pathetic little mind"
i'm really sorry that your arguments are so weak that you feel have to resort to blatant ad hominem attacks. very nice. when you feel like growing up and discussing as adults, drop me an email.
"That falls under the realm of something you can't avoid, and you have no active control over not hearing the music. If you choose to be within aural range of the music and don't wish to wear earplugs, you have to hear it. You don't have a choice in the matter."
well, what if you *choose* to stand next to that car? are you stealing from anyone? no. thats rediculous. what you are talking about is legislating what information a person is allowed to learn, which is a really scary concept.
"Okay, you've just removed the primary motivation to find the cure in the first place."
if you honestly beleive that money is the primary motive behind science you are much more sheltered and ignorant than i had thought. ahve you met and talked with many scientist? furthermore, its amazingly short sited to think that granting monopolies on information is the only viable method of funding science. all you have to do is look how far science, art and literature progressed before IP laws existed. public and private grants have been happily funding the progression of the arts and science for millenia, so why do some people suddenly think that IP monopolies are the only method of funding?
"Why bother researching ANYTHING anymore (faster processors, better food, space travel) when there's no way you can ever recoup your costs for it?"
why bother implementing an entire OS and give it away for free? your suggestion that people wouldnt innovate if it wernt for a cash insintive is laughable and has been proven wrong by people deeds throughout all of history. but i suppose its a little to challenging to look past the last century in this debate.
to paraphrase you: its theft because you stole it.
what beautifully circular logic. just because the law saws something doesnt make that moral, right or rational.
walking by a car that is blasting the latest p. diddy song is "enjoying the fruits of someone else's labors" without paying them for the priveledge, and to call that theft is laughable. downloading an mp3 bears much more resemblance to this example than taking a piece of property from someone.
i have never seen a convincing arguement that aquiring information is theft, because its an impossible argument. theft implies the deprivation of something, and information can be copied infinitely to only gain.
stretching the laws of physical property to ideas is so rediclously flawed.
did you notice that they dont put all their employees address on that same page so you can share your opinion with them? if anyone feels like putting together a similar list of ibphoenix empoloyees contact information i think it would be only fair.
http://eclipse.org/ http://anjuta.org/
i'm an electronic musician, throw as much CPU at me as you can and i will use it. my laptop is 2.4ghz and i need MORE!!! :)