Larry Garfield wrote:
And here is the crux of the point that I've been making. Information is not
property. Property cannot be duplicated ad infinitim. Information can, by
its very nature. The concept of "theft" does not apply. The concept of
restricting the flow of information is artificial (to answer someone else's
question from earlier), whereas the laws of physics provide a natural
restriction on the flow of goods.
And here's where your argument loses me. It's not information that is
being restricted. It's my writing of the information that's mine. I
spent my time organizing a bunch of words in a particular way to
communicate some information. I wrote them. I spent a lot of time doing
it. It's my skill. You have no right to take the fruit of my skills
without compensating me. If I want to give it to you, I can. But you
have no right to just take my book.
If you want to take all the "information" that is in the book, all the
knowledge, all the facts, and put them in your own words, write them
down in some other form, they are yours. Feel free. Facts are facts. But
the particular expression of that information is mine.
It seems me that, in theory, any property can be duplicated infinatum.
It's just a question of resources and time. It takes very little time
and resources to duplicate a computer file. It takes a lot of time and
resources to duplicate a house.
You are the one buying into the "spin" by claiming that information is as
permanently and inviolately restricted as atoms and molecules are. That is
false. That does not make breaking the law "right", but it is a necessary
fact of nature to understand if you want to understand the law and why the
law exists (in theory).
Sorry, but no one is trying to restrict information. Talk about spin.
The storage of my words in a file is a concrete thing. Because it is
stored in ones and zeros on a computer disk does not make it some sort
of cosmic entity. It still is just a collection of words. My words. It's
no different than a stack of paper with typewritten words on it that an
author produced with a typewriter.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you also spend time writing long
emails correcting people who use the term "identity theft"?
Janet
Of course, the media moguls have spent decades selling that spin precisely
because they want to confuse the issue. If you convince people that
information is "property" in the same way that their house or car is, then
you undermine the purpose of copyright (promoting social good, not private
profit), undermine any attempts to reform the law, and undermine the basic
precepts of both open source software (the free flow of information creates
better expressive works through sharing) and Free software (restriction of
the free flow of information is immoral).
Is murder "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Is rape "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Is arson "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Is jaywalking "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Is speeding "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Is copyright infringement "theft"? Of course not, but it's still illegal.
Copyright infringement is no more "theft" than walking against the light
is "speeding".
I, for one, just call theft what it is.
And everything else that is illegal too, apparently, regardless of whether or
not it is.
--
Janet Valade -- janet.valade.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
