On 22/09/2011 15:32, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
On 22/09/2011 00:52, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
..
The only point I wanted to make is that the very concept of 'property',
of 'owning' things makes sense only if it is recognised by others -
it is a social agreement and not a law of nature.
Well, lets look at that a bit more closely.
...
Again, I never wrote any of 'Information wants to be free', 'I want it
herefore it is right', etc, I did not interpret Darwin, and I'm not
stating any moral imperatives.
So please stop blaming me for what may be some people's ideas or errors
but certainly not mine.
Ciao,
It's a discussion. Relevant since there is an interest in the principles
and problems of intellectual property (or whatever else we call it) on
this list - to say nothing of the broader issues around free v
commercial, the GPL, etc. Ultimately, ~all~ arguments not purely about
hard facts hinge on the conflict between moral imperatives, and draw on
rhetorical techniques to present them. I am not accusing or blaming
anyone here. This is a very general issue. But the words "social
agreement" inherently imply an imperative of some kind - the idea that
ownership is relative or sanctioned, rather that absolute (if only in
the sense that breaking the agreement might be judged under another
imperative, or justified by it). I give simple examples to illustrate
and clarify. These things are present in the words, whether we like it
or not, intentional or not, and we ~all~ call upon them frequently, one
way or another, perhaps the the more so the more "political" we are.
Topics just on this list have included copyright, DRM and watermarking,
as well as patents, and I have surely perpetrated quite a few moral
imperatives myself, in unguarded moments!
Richard Dobson
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
