On Friday 20 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote: > >> Perhaps your day job should stop paying you, because after you've > >> spent that time, you'll never get it back? > > > > Is this "make up things that Larry said" day? It must be, because I > > know > > you're not that stupid, Richard. If my boss doesn't pay me, it's > > breach of > > contract. There's nothing in dispute there. > > My point was only that when the book was written is irrelevant. > > It's just as irrelevant as the lag time between your work and your > paycheck. No, it is quite relevant. The time spent on the book/program/creative work cannot be gotten back whether you are paid for it or not, therefore that time cannot be "stolen" from you. There may, however, be a breach of contract involved in either case. It is an important distinction. See below. > > It's not a semantic game. Copyright infringement is not theft, under > > the laws > > of the USA or the laws of physics. To call it such is "wrong", > > inaccurate, > > misleading, disingenuous, ignorant, and otherwise inappropriate. > >> and a violation of the author's reasonable expectations, > > > > Artificially created by the law, yes. > > And is not the ability to enforce a "contract" between two people not > artificially created by the law as well? > > One could just as easily argue that all civil law suits, artificial > creations by law and not having actual criminal behaviour, should also > be thrown out. I never said that "artificial laws" should all be thrown out. They should, however, be understood in their proper context. A physical object can only be in the possession of one person at a time, per the laws of physics. Property law enhances and structures that natural situation. Information, which includes both ideas and their creative expression, by nature becomes known to anyone it touches without depriving the originator of it. It can be possessed by more than one person simultaneously. Copyright law artificially creates such a restriction on movement in an attempt to make its creation more economically attractive. It is not, however, directly based on physical laws. Note that I am not making a statement about right or wrong about either of the above sorts of laws. I am simply explaining them in proper context, because one cannot make a viable statement about whether they are right or wrong without understanding them in proper context. Speeding while driving is also an "artificial law" in that regard, as there is no physical law that says a car can only go 30 mph. That doesn't make speeding OK or less illegal, it just means that it is not a natural law. > > Really people. I find it hard to believe that the > > otherwise-intelligent > > people on this list have such a hard time with the concept that > > something > > should not be done for reasons that don't involve physical property, > > just as > > I find it hard to believe that making up things that someone > > supposedly said > > has suddenly become the "in" thing to do. > > Your post made it seem that you were in favor of those who choose to > infringe on copyright. In every online copyright debate I've gotten into, people always seem to assume that "either you're with us or you're with the evil terr'ist pirates". Nothing could be further from the truth, nor further from actual sense. That's why I keep getting into these debates; to point out that it's not a simple "copyright is moral and eternal vs. rampant theft and economic downfall" question. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
