You know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is not possible to 'own' information. Neither then, is it possible to 'own' physical property. Like information, it can be in your possession, but is there really any higher power that says, "This is yours"? No, there is not. There is only an understanding among men, which each individual agrees upon. Or sometimes, they will disagree about it or ignore it wholly.
I would like to point out, however, that if information cannot be owned, then it is by nature in the public domain. If it is not possible for an individual to 'own' information, then it is by definition unowned. It cannot be owned by anyone.
Unfortunately unless we are willing to relegate all information into non-existence and not allow anyone to see it, then the information must be considered open for all to see. Withholding all information from everyone is an impossibility, so if information cannot be privately held, then it must be publicly available. If information is publicly available as a rule, then music and television and other 'free' forms of information that you've talked about are indeed in the public domain.
Also, then, because of their lack of physical nature, passwords, financial statements, and a whole host of other sensitive information that most of us would prefer to keep private is then suddenly available to the public by its very nature.
It is information, and therefore, it must be free and unowned.
If another person asks me the PIN number to my credit card, I must give it to him. It is, after all, not mine. I cannot claim ownership of it. Were the courts to agree with this law of free information, I would be legally compelled to give him every piece of information about myself and my life that he wishes. It's a slippery slope that we're on here, if all this is true.
As a side note on the factory concept, you've assumed that we've paid for the owner. To keep the metaphor accurate to what I've been trying to say, we've never paid the factory owner a dime. You haven't paid the music maker, have you? You still have his stuff, however.
You're confusing naturally occurring things with things created and discovered. DNA is a naturally occurring thing; a mathematical formula needs to be discovered. Music needs to be created. These things don't just come out of the air.
A person has DNA. They have no choice in that matter. They have it. On the other hand, one does not have automatic knowledge of every mathematical premise on the planet. A formula needs to be discovered, and not everyone can do that. The person that discovers any given formula should be awarded full marks for the discovery.
Music is also a thing that needs to be created. Beethoven's 9th didn't spring up from nowhere. It came from him, an individual.
Everything man-made starts with an individual, and as such, that individual should get credit for whatever it is that he or she has done, whether good or bad. Naturally occurring things such as the fact that we all have bodies or DNA do not fall under these categories.
I believe in freedom, freedom where I can do whatever I want, so long as I don't step on my neighbour's ability to do the same. You claim no right to the musician's guitar, only to whatever he produces with it. That's like saying that I have no claim to another man's factory, but everything that he produces out of it is mine, without payment.
Either way, these are claims that we are not entitled to make.
Yeah. Mr. Ignoramus, if I may call you that, I think you are confusing the issue. You claim devastating effects, but have yet to actually come up with a credible one.
I don't like the RIAA and what they are doing, but that is due to their monopolistic actions. I believe that file sharing is the future and that there is a viable business model that can come of it.
However, I do not demand free stuff simply because I've decided that I can term it 'information' and somehow, in my mind, that makes it exempt from payment.
If I write a novel, and someone decides to put it in electronic format, that does not mean that I no longer deserve to be paid for my work. If someone reads the novel aloud, that does not suddenly put it public domain, depriving me of my income.
There is a better business model than the one that the RIAA would lock us into, that is certain. But to claim that someone's created works should not belong to them simply because they've been placed in digital format is the kind of irrational philosophizing that only a societal leech would use.
I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that stupidity is relegated specifically to class. I know many 'average' people that would be considered 'half' the intelligence of some Prada shoppers. Stupidity knows no boundaries - neither race, nor gender, nor social status will keep a dumbass from being a dumbass.
Who said anything about Republicans? I say any man who would be a democratic representative has these implied levels thrust upon them. Read the post again. It clearly points to any man who would be President, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.
As the President of the United States of America, there is a level of integrity and honesty implied (although hardly ever actually practiced) that, in my mind, would suggest that the President should not lie or mislead the people that elected him, regardless of forum. Simply because he is not officially under oath at a particular moment does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. It doesn't matter if it's about an affair, weapons of mass destruction or if he forgot to pay his bar tab one night. The expectation is that the President should speak the truth to those that made him their leader. (Of course, this is just idealistic; you'd be hard-pressed to find a president that didn't lie to the people on a semi-regular basis).
Try Canada. Sure, they tax the hell out of us, but other than that, we're pretty much left alone. That being said, it scares the crap out of me to watch the US continue to pass laws that kill off the notions of freedom as laid out in your Constitution. I'm just waiting for the day that Manifest Destiny creeps back into mainstream consciousness.
Very true. It seemed to me as I watched the show that someone somewhere (conspiracy theorists of the world, unite!) was trying to kill the show. It was very similar to what happened to another great show, Newsradio, which moved from night to night, was sometimes on, sometimes not, until it was dead in the water. Then, like Newsradio, it developed a significant following once in syndication.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to point out, however, that if information cannot be owned, then it is by nature in the public domain. If it is not possible for an individual to 'own' information, then it is by definition unowned. It cannot be owned by anyone.
Unfortunately unless we are willing to relegate all information into non-existence and not allow anyone to see it, then the information must be considered open for all to see. Withholding all information from everyone is an impossibility, so if information cannot be privately held, then it must be publicly available. If information is publicly available as a rule, then music and television and other 'free' forms of information that you've talked about are indeed in the public domain.
Also, then, because of their lack of physical nature, passwords, financial statements, and a whole host of other sensitive information that most of us would prefer to keep private is then suddenly available to the public by its very nature.
It is information, and therefore, it must be free and unowned.
If another person asks me the PIN number to my credit card, I must give it to him. It is, after all, not mine. I cannot claim ownership of it. Were the courts to agree with this law of free information, I would be legally compelled to give him every piece of information about myself and my life that he wishes. It's a slippery slope that we're on here, if all this is true.
As a side note on the factory concept, you've assumed that we've paid for the owner. To keep the metaphor accurate to what I've been trying to say, we've never paid the factory owner a dime. You haven't paid the music maker, have you? You still have his stuff, however.
A person has DNA. They have no choice in that matter. They have it. On the other hand, one does not have automatic knowledge of every mathematical premise on the planet. A formula needs to be discovered, and not everyone can do that. The person that discovers any given formula should be awarded full marks for the discovery.
Music is also a thing that needs to be created. Beethoven's 9th didn't spring up from nowhere. It came from him, an individual.
Everything man-made starts with an individual, and as such, that individual should get credit for whatever it is that he or she has done, whether good or bad. Naturally occurring things such as the fact that we all have bodies or DNA do not fall under these categories.
I believe in freedom, freedom where I can do whatever I want, so long as I don't step on my neighbour's ability to do the same. You claim no right to the musician's guitar, only to whatever he produces with it. That's like saying that I have no claim to another man's factory, but everything that he produces out of it is mine, without payment.
Either way, these are claims that we are not entitled to make.
I don't like the RIAA and what they are doing, but that is due to their monopolistic actions. I believe that file sharing is the future and that there is a viable business model that can come of it.
However, I do not demand free stuff simply because I've decided that I can term it 'information' and somehow, in my mind, that makes it exempt from payment.
If I write a novel, and someone decides to put it in electronic format, that does not mean that I no longer deserve to be paid for my work. If someone reads the novel aloud, that does not suddenly put it public domain, depriving me of my income.
There is a better business model than the one that the RIAA would lock us into, that is certain. But to claim that someone's created works should not belong to them simply because they've been placed in digital format is the kind of irrational philosophizing that only a societal leech would use.
I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that stupidity is relegated specifically to class. I know many 'average' people that would be considered 'half' the intelligence of some Prada shoppers. Stupidity knows no boundaries - neither race, nor gender, nor social status will keep a dumbass from being a dumbass.
Who said anything about Republicans? I say any man who would be a democratic representative has these implied levels thrust upon them. Read the post again. It clearly points to any man who would be President, Democrat, Republican or otherwise.
As the President of the United States of America, there is a level of integrity and honesty implied (although hardly ever actually practiced) that, in my mind, would suggest that the President should not lie or mislead the people that elected him, regardless of forum. Simply because he is not officially under oath at a particular moment does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. It doesn't matter if it's about an affair, weapons of mass destruction or if he forgot to pay his bar tab one night. The expectation is that the President should speak the truth to those that made him their leader. (Of course, this is just idealistic; you'd be hard-pressed to find a president that didn't lie to the people on a semi-regular basis).
Of course, your vote may not count at all, if Diebold (and probably Bush) have their way. Yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy.
It was my understanding that Manifest Destiny meant all of North America, not just out west.
Try Canada. Sure, they tax the hell out of us, but other than that, we're pretty much left alone. That being said, it scares the crap out of me to watch the US continue to pass laws that kill off the notions of freedom as laid out in your Constitution. I'm just waiting for the day that Manifest Destiny creeps back into mainstream consciousness.
Very true. It seemed to me as I watched the show that someone somewhere (conspiracy theorists of the world, unite!) was trying to kill the show. It was very similar to what happened to another great show, Newsradio, which moved from night to night, was sometimes on, sometimes not, until it was dead in the water. Then, like Newsradio, it developed a significant following once in syndication.