On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote: > I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or > libertarian vs statism > debates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this: > > P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z. > P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z. > P3. I want Y to have Z. > C. Therefore, we should keep X. > > The problem is in premise 3. > Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live forever. What > next? But that is important! Because we talked that much about money, an easy to understand example. There are rich people and some poor people are unhappy because there are some rich people. To become happy the first way to go, is o find out what _you_ and not _somebody_ else wants. If you want to be rich yourself, you simply don't like rich people, because you are envious, you won't become happy, when all the rich people become poor too. In this case you shouldn't fight against the rich, but find a way to become rich yourself. If you are unhappy regarding to empathy, because you think that the universe isn't a strawberry field, but a hard, unfair place, you'll not become happy if you become rich too, you need to work for a fair and lovely world. It's not important to become rich, if you want to become rich, it's not important to get a perfect world, if you want to get a perfect world. It's just important to go the way that's close to what you want, this will make you happy. So what kind of copyright or copyleft does provide the most freedom for everybody, to go the way that makes happy? The only important thing is exactly this freedom. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
