[OT] - does IP exist?

[Jesse Phillips]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:46:50 +0000, Manfred_Nowak wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> 
>> but this is because me and Yigal do not seem to have the same
>> understanding
> 
> Natural language is full of ambiguities. One can be glad to detect those
> ambiguities early.
> 
> Therefore: if one wants to restrict freedom, because one assumes that
> some or several can benefit from that restriction, then one has to set
> up unambiguous rules. Rules on how to detect violations, how the lost
> benefits are to be valued and how the violations should be prosecuted.
> 
> -manfred

Yes, but the point was that _you_ had an understanding of what was said 
or at least where it was going. The problem is not really knowing of the 
ambiguities, but addressing them. Since language is full of the 
ambiguities even trying to explain the main idea can lead to more that 
need to be explained. It is usually more efficient to assume that the 
idea can be communicated without nitpicking at what was said.

Pirating vs stealing, come on. I can agree with what downs is 
distinguishing here, but I don't see the point. They are both just as 
wrong as the other and can have the same effects (or at least that is 
where the argument is).