> I never said everything that was illegal was wrong, but I clearly
> do feel that way about copyrights.
Obviously. But you still haven't said _why_. I'm genuinely
interested. I like hearing opposing arguments that have some
substance, because they are so rare. Robert Bradbury mentioned
the lack of ability for investors to get return on highly
speculative research. That's an argument with substance, and
in fact one of the hardest to counter. I happen to think that
removing patents will shift technology development more toward
small, incremental improvements and craftsmanship and away from
"creative" invention, and that that's not such a bad thing.
But at least I recognize that the opposing argument is a good
one, and that I am obliged to counter it with substantive
argument of my own.
> >You don't believe that, and using that to justify your refusal to
> >look at your ethical position on copyright is dishonest and
> >cowardly. Don't hide behind the law--tell us what you think is
> >actually right and wrong; and back up your opinion.
> Dishonest? Cowardly?
> End of discussion.
How else do you describe two messages with absolutely no content
other than "this is illegal", "this is theft". If that's not
hiding behind the law as an excuse for ehtical judgment, I don't
know what is.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT