|
Oh sure, I recognize that the moral element of IP law is up for discussion. If you go back and read the whole thread, you'll see I specifically brought that point up. As for the general consensus though, I can't say I care. If it matters to you at all, the law do esn't really care either else Napster probably wouldn't have been shut down.
Actually, intellectual property isn't particularly different from other kinds of property except insofar as it is easily duplicateable. The concept of physical property a lso only exists because of the legal structure that surrounds it. In other words, you own a piece of land -only- because there's a piece of paper in some office somewhere saying you do. Nothing stopping me from creating a piece of paper saying I own the property. It's just a question of whose point of view the guns of government are going to enforce. That's a red herring I'm not intending to lay out for pursuit, however. Just pointing out that IP isn't really any different insofar as its value and applicability is entirely determined by the legal structure it takes place in.
I mean, you could argue that taking someone's car without permission is fine. If your moral position doesn't recognize the validity of private property, it probably is fine. Similarly you can argue that taking someone's IP without permission is fine.
I choose to do neither. They're both wrong.
--matt
|