Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Thu Sep 22 2005 08:24 pm Antoon Pardon writes: >> Sorry, that is NOT the definition of theft. The definition of theft >> is taking what is not yours without permission. If you take my recipe >> without my leave, you are stealing and you are a thief. > > Information can't be taken. Sure if I broke into your house and stole > the piece of paper your recipe was written on, I'm a thief. If you used a telescope to peek inside my house and get the recipe, you are stealing (and violating at least one additional law). > If I was visiting your firm, could read the recipe and remember it, > then I didn't take anything, I didn't steal. Legally (at least in the USA) that's just plain wrong (although it depends legally to some degree on how well I protected the recipe, whether you've signed an NDA and--in some cases--what country you come from). Information can *definitely* be taken; we all take information constantly. I'm guessing you mean it cannot be *stolen*. But your definition seems to depend on the idea that stealing requires leaving nothing in it's place and that if the original is left intact, it's not "taking" (stealing). Which is incorrect. Taking/Stealing has a much broader definition. Don't take my word for it, though. Ask a lawyer. >> Do you really not understand that morality is about YOUR actions and >> not whether you got away with something or whether it's okay, because >> nothing obvious is missing from your victim? > > I'm not talking morals. That it isn't stealing doesn't imply it > is moral. If you want to argue that it is immoral, fine, but > that doesn't mean it is theft. I'm arguing that it's immoral BECAUSE it's theft. > IMO trying to imply that it is immoral by trying to argue that > it is theft is a lost battle because each time someone tried, > the arguments used would imply in a number of fair trade > actions being labeled theft too. No, I think we've cleared up the confusion between fair competition and stealing from the competition. (I haven't seen any substantial rebuttals to it anyway.) >> Consider an explorer who's sacrificed good years with family, who's >> sacrificed some elements of health, who's invested considerable funds >> in exploring a heretofore unexplored part of the world. >> >> Our intrepid explorer now creates some lovely maps to sell to recoup >> some of the lost funds, repair health and "make it up" to the family. >> >> If you copy those maps--and since you have lost no family time, no >> health and very little funds--you can sell these maps at cut rate >> prices. >> >> Which **steals** the explorer's ability to recoup on the considerable >> investment and risk made to reach the goal. > > You are using a circular argument. That the explorer loses his ability > to recoup on the considerabl investment and risk made to reach the goal > can be caused by a number of means that are considered fair trade. > > So this arguement doesn't imply that it is stealing. Stealing is > the idea you started from. Nope, sorry, not so. I started from the explorer and considered the consequences of the work being stolen. And I did mean to illustrate what happens when it *was* stolen--the effect on the explorer was significant. You seem to think that, because there are other ways in which the explorer could be SOL that they are all the same. They are not. You cannot look at two end results and--because they are similar-- claim the causes are similar. That is logical foolishness. In most cases, fair competition occurs on a level field. For anyone else to achieve the same goal as our explorer, they probably need to expend much the same effort. If they do that in a way that costs them much less than it did our explorer, our explorer is just SOL. > This has been so with all the arguments I've seen here. People > argue that copying has a number of effect suggesting that such > effect imply stealing. It's not about effects. LOTS of things have similar end results. If you die of old age, that's too bad. If you die because you were murdered, that's a serious crime. It's serious logical fallacy to believe that similar end results imply similar causes. Things get wet for LOTS of reasons. >>> No, information is not something that can be owned. >> >> Why not? Says who? > > Because it can't be taken from someone. That seems an article of dogma to you. I strongly suggest you sit down and think about it, because it's just plain wrong. The fact that you take a *copy* does not in any logical way imply that you have NOT TAKEN something. You have. >> Thankfully, I'm one of the only owners of my ATM PIN number. >> If I couldn't own this piece of information, that would not >> be a Good Thing. > > No, you don't own that information. You can try to hide it, but > if it were somehow in display you can't forbid people to look > at it. Meaningless. I own my car (would you agree)? But I cannot forbid people to look at it. > You can forbid people to use it to get money from your account, > but that doesn't mean you own the information. No. Actually I can't forbid that either. Just like I cannot forbid people from taking my car. What I can do--because I own that car and because I own my bank account AND THE MEANS TO ACCESS IT--is seek legal recourse. >> If you narrowly define property as a physical thing, then the above >> is true. However, I think we've evolved enough as humans to recognize >> that there are other forms of (non-physical) property. > > And I think that it is wrong to call exclusive use rights of > information, property. You have the right to think what you will, of course. >> That definition is too narrow. Sometimes when information is >> shared, something precious is lost. > > But not property. Is it just the term "property" that bothers you? Fine, forget that. Do you disagree I have the right to determine how my work is used? >> All of which is a somewhat pointless side trip away from the simple >> fact that taking without permission is theft. > > But this simple fact doesn't imply that information can be treated > as property and can be taken. Fine, forget all the terminology. My work, my sweat and blood. Do I have the right to determine how it is used? >> It's really a very simple moral equation. Do you want the right to >> define "property" that is legally obtained and rightfully yours? >> Then you must grant others that same right. >> >> The moment you open the door to the idea that there are circumstances >> (in your opinion) that justify theft, you've opened the door for others >> to come up with their own reasons why they can steal from you. >> >> For example, if I seduce your wife--and you never know about it--will >> you readily agree I've taken nothing from you? Your wife is still as >> she was (except for that little secret smile)--nothing *obvious* has >> been "taken" from you........ so, it's all okay? > > You are mixing all kind of different things. I don't think I am. You have been drawing distinctions based on the tangibility of something that--at least in some sense--belongs to another person. You've also drawn distinctions based on whether taking involves leaving a hole of some kind. So I think the question is apt. > You have legal and illegal actions, you have moral and immoral > actions and you have stealing and non-stealing. > > Now about you seducing my wife. You didn't steal her and you > did nothing illegal, at least not where I live. Understood and agreed. However, the question I'm asking is whether you would feel I've acted in a bad way towards you. Would you wish for revenge or legal recourse or some way to prevent me? > Now if you want to argue that copying is immoral and should > be illegal that it is one thing, but it doesn't imply stealing. Well, I'm definitely arguing copying without permission is immoral. And I'll go along somewhat with the idea that immoral copying doesn't *necessarily* damage the author (but sometimes it does--I was just reading about how Hollywood figures it loses billions of $$ in lost sales to pirates). But, again, this is NOT about end effects. You cannot justify an act morally because you got away with it or because it turned out to not damage the other party. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .