The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Mike Parker]

bobef wrote:
> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>>  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
>>> of the
>>>> law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
>>>> lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
>>>> material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
>>>> things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.
>>> Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
>>> the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
>>> language).
>>>
>>> stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
>>> whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
>>> you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
>>> since there's nothing to steal.
>> Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
>> linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
>> concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
>> but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
>> to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
>> or should have that right.
>>
> This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.
> 

Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have no 
respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software. He'll 
be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't deserve 
  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods 
enjoy. He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you 
dash his dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out 
and find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!

Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't 
give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something 
someone else has created without the creator's permission. I'm sure we 
can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you 
for it, then I am well within my right to do so. How is it that when my 
creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right? I've heard 
this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to me. 
True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing a 
physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the 
time and effort I put into it. It takes a heck of a lot longer to 
develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a 
chair. So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same 
right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide 
if my product should be freely available?

And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap. 
Software is not information. It's a product.