> I just *can't* let a faulty argument go by without making a comment. Call
> it a character flaw. But anyway...
Hey, we've got something in common! :)
> The lines become less clear if you buy my lunch from me, then proceed to
> dismantle it in order to discover my secret recipe for making the best
> bologna sandwich this side of the Mississippi, and then you proceed to
> reproduce those sandwiches and give them to your friends. You have gained
> something, but I have not lost anything (namely my recipe for bologna
> sandwiches).
Okay, I'm going to read your argument as being that it's okay if I take
something from you without your permission as long as you don't lose
anything. Believe it or not, I can actually agree with that statement. The
question is-- do _you_ agree with it?
I have to ask because it has implications: namely, if I can show that
you -do- lose something when I take your intellectual property, you're
obliged to either withdraw the argument (or refine it, or whatever) or agree
that stealing IP is bad.
...and I'm guessing that I -don't- need to show ways in which you lose when
I take your intellectual property, because you seem fairly sharp and I bet
you can come up with a bunch yourself.
...but here's a simple one to get you started: I write a book. You want
the book. You make a free digital copy of the book. You don't pay me for
the book. I lose you paying for my book.
Surely we can discuss value in intelligent terms and in reference to things
other than material objects? I don't need to break down your door and eat
stuff out of your fridge in order for you to experience 'loss.'
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::wild.ghost.studios::
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:35 MDT