Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 09:24 am Op 2005-09-23, Chris Sonnack schreef : > Antoon Pardon writes: > > 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. Lawyers work with legal language. If tomorrow a law was voted that defined sniffing someone/somethings odour as stealing, your layer would inform you that doing so was indeed stealing and people would start talking about aroma properties. But that doesn't mean an aroma can be treated as a property. It would only mean the law gave exclusive rights. >>> 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. But the question was not whether is was moral or not. The question was whether is was theft or not. So if you are arguing that it's immoral BECAUSE it's theft, you are not only arguing for what was asked for. You are starting from the point others ask arguments for. > Nope, sorry, not so. I started from the explorer and considered the > consequences of the work being stolen. See here is where the circularity started. You started from the exploreree and considered the consequences of the work being copied. If you already consider this copying as stealing, you started from the idea you are supposed to argue for. I ask you to give arguments why I should see this as stealing and here you admit that stealing was your premisse. So for arguing that copying is stealing, your argument is circular. > And I did mean to illustrate > what happens when it *was* stolen--the effect on the explorer was > significant. Why illustrate something that was not in dispute? > 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. No I don't. I argue that since there are otherways to get the same effects, referring to these effect is useless as an argument. > You cannot look at two end results and--because they are similar-- > claim the causes are similar. That is logical foolishness. I don't do that. > In most cases, fair competition occurs on a level field. No it doesn't. Some people have more knowledge, some people have more money, some people are better in organising. The field is all but level. >> 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. Then don't argue about effects. You admit here above, that you considered the consequences of the explores who's work was stolen/copied. If it is not about effects or consequences, why did you bring it up? > It's serious logical fallacy to believe that similar end results > imply similar causes. Things get wet for LOTS of reasons. No, but similar end results do imply the end results are insufficient to come to a conclusion. And what I mostly see from the people that want to see copying as stealing is some kind of scenario where copying has some detrimental effect where the story stops as if the conclusion that it is theft is obvious from these detrimental effects. > >>>> 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. I can equally say, that the opposite is your dogma. I have shown a number of differences between property and information. Even you have to acknowdlege this difference. If something is not your property and you alter it, even improve it that doesn't make it your property. But if you find a recipe in a public place like a library and then alter it and improve it, you do think this improved recipe is now your property. You didn't refute these difference, nor did you came with similarities that would support the idea that information and property are like each other. You just repeated your case. >>> 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. Looking at your car doesn't gain them the car. Looking at your number does gain them (the information of) that number. In what way do you think you own this number? Do you think noone else can use this number for anything? Do you think you are the only one with this PIN number? Of course not, the only thing you have is the exclusive right to use this number in combination with a credit card or something like wise. But you are not the owner of any number. >> 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. Now you are just playing word games. If you play it this way, you can own anything, because you can always seek legal resource however rediculous your claim. Seeking legal resource can always be done. >>> 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 depends. To give an extreme example, someone that robs a bank has also put sweat and blood into it. If someone would go into an awfull lot of trouble to get your beer recipe, you wouldn't let him have in on the grounds of his work, sweat and blood, would you? >> 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? As far as I know, I have no agreement with you about my wife. And you don't know what agreements I have with my wife. So IMO the only person I rationally could have a problem with, is my wife, if she broke our agreement. It would be something different should my wife have made it clear she is not interrested in you and you keep bothering her. >> 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). I would say a film is different from a beer recipe. In a sense the film is the product that is payed for, but people don't pay for the recipe, they pay pay for the beer. So IMO these two don't need to be treated the same. Maybe there are good arguments to do so, but I don't see the need a priori. -- Antoon Pardon .