The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[downs]

Mike Parker wrote:
> 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.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".

> 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!

There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional arguments. Guess which yours is.

> 
> 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.

This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).

The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a certain period of time. It does not exist "by default".

> 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.

Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE SAME. THING.

> How is it that when my
> creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?

Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of times.

> 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.

Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your physical goods?

> It takes a heck of a lot longer to
> develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
> chair.

Maybe for cheap chairs.

> 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?
> 
See above.

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

Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).