On Saturday 22 December 2001 01:34, Chris wrote: > >>Yes but things that are wrong because they are against the > >>law, not because of some deep moral principle, can be > >>changed through the political process. That's why it's important > >>not to call it theft or piracy when it's not theft or piracy. > > > > I don't understand, how is stealing intellectual property > > What intellectual property? There is no such thing. There are > copyrights, patents and trademarks - that's all. > > > not theft? I > >don't know of any time God has advocated rebelling against any > > reasonable law. Thus, if God doesn't advocate it, isn't it a deep > > moral priciple? > > I am not an American, but let's look at the US constitution.
Oh! That's interesting! What country do you reside in, Chris? > The founders, somewhat reluctantly allowed for copyrights and patents for a reasonable time to promote innovation. That reasonable time was 14 years. Now copyrights are extended to longer than a person's lifetime and retrospectively. That does not promote inovation, and it is a theft from the public domain. I wish more people believed that. Thomas Jefferson did. "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson Significantly, the founders did not argue for copyrights or patents as "property." Jefferson even explicitly dismissed a property model for copyright, and maintained his skepticism about the costs and benefits of copyright for many years. Fearing, justifiably, that copyright might eventually expand to encompass idea protection, not just expression protection, Jefferson wrote in 1813, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispose himself of it." "Jefferson then declared the flaw in the notion of copyright as property. Unlike tangible property, ideas and expressions are not susceptible to natural scarcity. As Jefferson wrote of copyright, "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Therefore, Jefferson feared, the monopolists could use their state-granted power to strengthen their control over the flow of ideas and the use of expressions. Monopolies have the power to enrich themselves by evading the limitations of the competitive marketplace. Prices need not fall when demand slackens, and demand need not slacken if the monopoly makes itself essential to the economy (like electrical power or computer operating systems). " http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b44a5770702.htm JLK