Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]   Go Down
Author Topic: Your opinion on piracy?  (Read 21516 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dallas, Texas
Offline Offline
God Member
*****
Karma: 31
Posts: 887
Old, decrepit curmugeon
View Profile
WWW
 Bigger Bigger  Smaller Smaller  Reset Reset

Quote
I think Locke was correct when he stated that the basic human rights are 'Life, Liberty, and Property' and Jefferson did a disservice in his paraphrasing of Locke.

It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

You have to pare things back to the bare bones of do most people feel morally wrong doing something.
If they don't then do not let somebody pass a law that makes that thing illegal.
By sticking to the principle of having laws that uphold moral views you will have good laws and avoid manipulation of the legal system for the benefit of a few.

What is regarded as moral will change with time and will vary from place to place and laws must be adjusted accordingly.

I would suggest that you read Locke's Two Treatises of Government, he offers a clearer delivery of his argument than any I could hope to convey here.  That said, he defines property as the product of one's labors...  Given that definition, I can't think of any society in the history of the world that didn't believe (at least for those in power) that they have the right to their 'property', even the polynesian cultures you mention.  While they did have a strong communal approach (as did many aboriginal cultures) to property, they still respected personal property and more importantly they had a belief that each individual earned their share of the communal property by their labors which they also contributed to others...


It is possible to have a societies where there is little concept of personal property so it is not a basic human right.

It is not only possible, but factual, that societies have decided that liberty is not a basic human right...  Doesn't make it so.  Ask any slave if their basic human rights were being violated smiley

I really do suggest reading Locke, he spends far more time and is more eloquent than I am elucidating the point.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2012, 01:22:33 pm by wanderson » Logged

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

Dallas, Texas
Offline Offline
God Member
*****
Karma: 31
Posts: 887
Old, decrepit curmugeon
View Profile
WWW
 Bigger Bigger  Smaller Smaller  Reset Reset

Obviously, this works against companies like Microsoft and Apple. The reason for this is, that these systems ("alternative business models") are empowering to the individual, small entrepreneur (like myself) and detrimental for large companies. Which could mean that in the future we will see markets controlled not by one or two quasi-monopolies, but by a plethora of smaller companies (which, in my opinion would be a very good thing). Large companies feel threatened by this, and that is why they are pushing for protection of the current copyright and property system. Maybe it will work, but this is something I am scared of, because I am afraid it will lead to a society ruled continuously more and more by company policies than by actual democratic systems.

Frankly, I believe most of that paragraph shows a distinct lack of understanding of human history.  I also think it places an unwarranted amount of faith in what 'alternative business models' can accomplish.  Large businesses exist for the simple reason that they are able to provide most cost effective products to the public, which will always choose the cheaper item.  'Alternative business models' have so far only proven themselves when dealing with new, or unique niche products that are not in large demand.  Whether that will change is debatable, though I personally doubt it.

I would rather live in a world where copyright completely fails, as I believe it to be the freer, more interesting and more progressive scenario.

It is most certainly less free (though it certainly fits with the term 'progressive'), since by depriving the content creator the ability to benefit from their labor or even to control its use (ie, work product), it effectively turns the content creator into a slave, whose very purpose is to serve at the whims of others...

Logged

New true random number library available at: http://code.google.com/p/avr-hardware-random-number-generation/

Current version 1.0.1

Offline Offline
God Member
*****
Karma: 7
Posts: 647
"In this house, we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics" Homer J. Simpson
View Profile
 Bigger Bigger  Smaller Smaller  Reset Reset

Quote
Given that definition, I can't think of any society in the history of the world that didn't believe (at least for those in power) that they have the right to their 'property'

Your caveat "at least for those in power" is where the rub lies. Those in a dominant position use laws to enforce and entrench their position. Slave owners regarded slaves as property and the laws they made supported that position. The majority came to the moral position that slavery was bad, hence the laws were bad and they were overturned.

My point is that in any society the laws should reflect the moral view of the majority, if they don't they are bad laws.
When you have a situation when people are breaking the law when the majority would consider they are making "fair use" then it is a bad law.

Quote
It is not only possible, but factual, that societies have decided that liberty is not a basic human right
Do you mean the leaders decided or the majority? If it was the leaders that supports my position on bad laws, if it was the people can you point to specific examples?


Logged

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18]   Go Up
Jump to: