>From: Trent Shipley >To: BRIN-L@cornell.edu, PLUG Discuss >Subject: Re: the right to read >Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:01:02 -0700 >Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > >So ... is this a bad thing? Are you supporting the illegalization of book sharing? >Historically it is hard to justify a natural right to intellectual property. Historically, IP did not exist until early capitalism met the industrial evolution. >As a Republican (capital 'R') I axiomatically prefer growth to equity. The >impoverished deserve to be destitute because they are poor. The above is a joke right? Tautalogically speaking, the rich deserve to be well-off because they are prosperous! > >However, I have a dark and guilty doubt. Is it possible to reach a point of >absuridity (or worse, declining returns) in defining intellectual property? Oh, yes, "declining returns" is _much_ worse than absurdity! Apparently, declining returns are enough of an excuse to attack fair use and rights of personal archivage, if the RIAA is the judge. >Is an intellectual commons necessary (that is beyond the un-avoidable common >property in the still free good of un-recorded verbal conversation). If we can't all have access to the books and media that constitute our evolving culture, then we will become many disparate cultures. > >CREDO!! <--- Bullshit > >IP is *GOOD*! >Respect for property is virtuous. >Common ownership of durable intellectual products is pernicious. So If I freely donate my IP (software) to be GPL'D, then I am being pernicious? When will it be illegal, next year?