Right to Read

>From: Trent Shipley <tcshipley@earthlink.net>
>To: BRIN-L@cornell.edu, PLUG Discuss <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
>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.

<snip exposition on history/purpose of patents>

>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?