Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Some direct questions for Synozeer and Medievia

Traithe · 06-08-2005, 01:55 AM

I realize this. However, that point is a bit of a red herring here: this debate is not about the moral propriety of intellectual property. It's about the propriety of theft and misrepresentation. Simply because some societies don't recognize ownership of intellectual property, or even any ownership at all, does not invalidate or lessen the moral impropriety of theft in those, like ours, that do.

The simple fact is, we live in a society that recognizes private ownership of private property. The evidence is overwhelming that Soleil and Vryce have committed theft, or at the very least systemic and long-standing misrepresentation, and have profited from these doings.

I am getting the impression that we're really in agreement, save when it comes to the threshold issue of being convinced that the theft actually took place - based on the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced (the code that underwent the code audit may have been obtained illegally, but Vryce issued a signed statement under penalty of perjury claiming that it was indeed Medievia IV code in order to effect the takedown). You're certainly free to be a bit more skeptical - but you aren't actually arguing that if they did what they're accused of they haven't done anything wrong, are you?

06-08-2005, 01:55 AM	#119
Traithe Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Name: Kite Posts: 131	I realize this. However, that point is a bit of a red herring here: this debate is not about the moral propriety of intellectual property. It's about the propriety of theft and misrepresentation. Simply because some societies don't recognize ownership of intellectual property, or even any ownership at all, does not invalidate or lessen the moral impropriety of theft in those, like ours, that do. The simple fact is, we live in a society that recognizes private ownership of private property. The evidence is overwhelming that Soleil and Vryce have committed theft, or at the very least systemic and long-standing misrepresentation, and have profited from these doings. I am getting the impression that we're really in agreement, save when it comes to the threshold issue of being convinced that the theft actually took place - based on the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced (the code that underwent the code audit may have been obtained illegally, but Vryce issued a signed statement under penalty of perjury claiming that it was indeed Medievia IV code in order to effect the takedown). You're certainly free to be a bit more skeptical - but you aren't actually arguing that if they did what they're accused of they haven't done anything wrong, are you?