Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:05 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 17, 7:31 pm, David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>Once more, small words: How does doing it in the privacy of your own
>>>>home change its
>>>>effect on others, or otherwise modify its moral value?
>>>
>>>If what you are doing is undectectable, such as downloading a file
>>>from a Usenet group, why does it even have a moral value?
>>
>> The fact that no one knows you have done something wrong doesn't
>>change whether it IS wrong.
>
>
> If it has no effect on anyone else, how can it possibly be the
> business of anyone else?

Nothing you do actually has NO effect on anyone else; the Butterfly
Effect, if nothing else, shows that. You may not be able to directly
detect the effect (although in the case of the "downloading" actions,
it is obviously quite easy to detect, so your "undetectable" doesn't
apply), but there will be one.

Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
> money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
> matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."

The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
>>money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
>>matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."
>
>
> The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
> its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.

No, money is not there after being stolen.

I was not saying that downloading stuff was, or was not, stealing. I
was saying that right and wrong aren't a matter of who knows or who
was hurt, it's a matter of whether you're doing something you should
do or not.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:32:26 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, Sea Wasp
<seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote,
>right and wrong are
....
>a matter of whether you're doing something you should do or not.

Begging the question.

Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
>>>money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
>>>matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."
>>
>> The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
>> its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.
>
> No, money is not there after being stolen.

Tweet, time out. Gene used an unlabelled analogy; he's actually talking about
the act of copying books (or whatever) electronically, and might have been
clearer if he wrote it as "The 'money' is still there after being 'stolen'.
That isn't...". Yes, stolen money doesn't stay where it was, but copied
e-materials, in general, do.

Dave "come out fighting" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

David Harmon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:32:26 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote,
>
>>right and wrong are
>
> ...
>
>>a matter of whether you're doing something you should do or not.
>
>
> Begging the question.

Not really. No one asked me what I thought was right or wrong; I was
merely responding to the idea that if I can successfully hide
wrongdoing that this makes it no longer wrong.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

David DeLaney wrote:
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
>>>>money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
>>>>matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."
>>>
>>>The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
>>>its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.
>>
>> No, money is not there after being stolen.
>
>
> Tweet, time out. Gene used an unlabelled analogy;


Didn't matter. I wasn't talking about the specific case, but the
general "if no one knows I did something wrong, then it's not wrong"
concept which Gene put forth earlier.

Whether it's about downloading songs or robbing banks or killing
people or taking a single grape from a bunch in the supermarket,
doesn't matter. The DEGREE of wrongdoing varies, and the appropriate
penalty (or whether there is sufficient "wrong" to warrant the effort
of tracking down and imposing a penalty at all) varies, but the bare
fact of doing right or wrong doesn't. Unless your DEFINITION of right
and wrong is "wrong is what other people catch me doing that they
don't want me doing".


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Dec 19, 2:24 pm, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
> > Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
> > money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
> > matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."
>
> The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
> its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.

No, actually counterfeiting, unlike copyright infringement, _is_
stealing.

A pirated copy of a book is valuable in itself: you can read it just
like a legitimate copy.

A counterfeit $100 bill is just a piece of paper - just like the real
one. It's only valuable for the same reason a forged check is. A
forged check can be used to get money out of the victim's bank
account, and a counterfeit $100 bill can obtain goods and services
from others on the pretence of being a real one (it would have to be a
very _good_ counterfeit to withdraw gold from Fort Knox).

So counterfeiting is a means of committing theft through fraud.

Now, if you were making gold bars by alchemy, then you would have a
comparison...

John Savard

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:18:43 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, Sea Wasp
<seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote,
>
> Not really. No one asked me what I thought was right or wrong; I was
>merely responding to the idea that if I can successfully hide
>wrongdoing that this makes it no longer wrong.

That's better, but I don't think anyone was really trying to make
the argument that if you can hide it, no longer wrong. Rather, I
see the argument that wrong depends on consequences. Do you argue
that wrong has nothing to do with consequences?

..

On Dec 20, 11:45 am, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

> That's better, but I don't think anyone was really trying to make
> the argument that if you can hide it, no longer wrong. Rather, I
> see the argument that wrong depends on consequences. Do you argue
> that wrong has nothing to do with consequences?

Exactly; moreover I claim the consequences have to go beyond the
hypothetical or merely trivial to trump the right of privacy. If we
reject that, it seems to me we have subverted the argument against the
laws prohibiting contraception and most forms of sex, all of which are
supposed to have hypothetical dire consequences. People can always
dream up alleged consequences; we even got the Butterfly Effect on
this thread. Actual *harm* is the relevant issue.

People seem to forget that there is a long, bad history of abusive
laws, and to wish to treat the question in a vacuum. I suggest a look
at the history of laws regulating conduct in private.

Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> People seem to forget that there is a long, bad history of abusive
> laws, and to wish to treat the question in a vacuum. I suggest a look
> at the history of laws regulating conduct in private.

Which is why I oppose the DMCA, limitations on first sale, or actively
enforcing rules on *trivial* copying. But open P2P file sharing on the
internet isn't by any stretch of the imagination private... it's
republication.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> No, actually counterfeiting, unlike copyright infringement, _is_
> stealing.
[..]
> So counterfeiting is a means of committing theft through fraud.
>
> Now, if you were making gold bars by alchemy, then you would have a
> comparison...

Elsewhere in the thread, someone else objected to that.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On Dec 20, 3:56 pm, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People seem to forget that there is a long, bad history of abusive
> > laws, and to wish to treat the question in a vacuum. I suggest a look
> > at the history of laws regulating conduct in private.
>
> Which is why I oppose the DMCA, limitations on first sale, or actively
> enforcing rules on *trivial* copying. But open P2P file sharing on the
> internet isn't by any stretch of the imagination private... it's
> republication.

There's an argument that p2p isn't private, since it involves waving
your IP address around in cyberspace. But that tends to run aground on
all these grandmas being charged with sharing hip-hop music, or people
being required to hand over their disk drives--it looks as if it is
private enough that the snoops aren't able to snoop very well, and are
willing to intrude in ways which involve clear violations of personal
liberty.

But the argument won't extend to downloading from Usenet. That's not
republication for the downloader, only perhaps the uploader. The same
for downloading from a free file sending service. By the way, why
haven't I been hearing screams of agony about those? Surely RIAA
should be objecting: you can upload a bunch of mp3 files, and then
tell 100 of your best friends about it.

On 2007-12-20 15:58:23 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:

> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> No, actually counterfeiting, unlike copyright infringement, _is_
>> stealing.
> [..]
>> So counterfeiting is a means of committing theft through fraud.
>>
>> Now, if you were making gold bars by alchemy, then you would have a
>> comparison...
>
> Elsewhere in the thread, someone else objected to that.

No, I said that if you could do it, go ahead.

I objected to duplication of my valuable possessions (defined as
possessions whose value would be diminished by such duplication) via a
process that required the valuable possession to be part of the
process. If you can create gold by alchemy, have a party, and let me
know the recipe.

kdb

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:26:56 -0500, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
>>>>money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
>>>>matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."

>>> The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
>>> its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.

>> No, money is not there after being stolen.

>Tweet, time out. Gene used an unlabelled analogy; he's actually talking about
>the act of copying books (or whatever) electronically, and might have been
>clearer if he wrote it as "The 'money' is still there after being 'stolen'.
>That isn't...". Yes, stolen money doesn't stay where it was, but copied
>e-materials, in general, do.

But is less valuable than it was before, on account of the now-diminished
resale market. Or maybe it isn't, but even if you (as the thief) thinks
it's more valuable than it was before, it's not your call to make.

I mean, I could make a credible argument that "borrowing" someone else's
classic car to use as a getaway vehicle in a spectacular, high-profile
crime and then return before the owner notices anything, will cause him
no harm and will actually increase the resale value of the car on account
of the notoriety. But no matter how sure I am that this is the case, no
matter how much trouble I go through to *make* sure it turns out that way,
it's still auto theft.

So go wrap up all those "it doesn't hurt you and might help..." arguments
and take them to the authors and the publishers, where they will do the
most good, to the people who have the actual right to make that decision.
Using such arguments to justify private theft, tarnishes them for the rest
of us.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 5:02 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>> Right and wrong are not a matter of "does anyone know I stole the
>>>>money" or "did I directly hurt anyone by stealing the money", it's a
>>>>matter of "I shouldn't steal stuff, whether or not anyone knows."
>>>
>>> The money is still there after being "stolen". That isn't stealing,
>>> its counterfeiting. It's also a terrible analogy.
>>
>> No, money is not there after being stolen.
>
>Tweet, time out. Gene used an unlabelled analogy; he's actually talking about
>the act of copying books (or whatever) electronically, and might have been
>clearer if he wrote it as "The 'money' is still there after being 'stolen'.
>That isn't...". Yes, stolen money doesn't stay where it was, but copied
>e-materials, in general, do.
>
>Dave "come out fighting" DeLaney

And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.

The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
and make things sound worse than they are. One might compare that to
reefer madness or the abominable and detestable crime against nature .
People fall for that kind of propaganda all too readily, and it would
appear you have.

David Harmon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:18:43 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote,
>
>> Not really. No one asked me what I thought was right or wrong; I was
>>merely responding to the idea that if I can successfully hide
>>wrongdoing that this makes it no longer wrong.
>
>
> That's better, but I don't think anyone was really trying to make
> the argument that if you can hide it, no longer wrong. Rather, I
> see the argument that wrong depends on consequences. Do you argue
> that wrong has nothing to do with consequences?
>
> .

Certainly not with direct consequences. I can steal a grape from the
supermarket and if no one sees me there's not really any consequences
to anyone. They lose hundreds per day on the floor. It's still wrong.

You can make a copy of my work without my knowledge and show it to
your friends and claim you did it. If no one who actually knows my
work sees you doing this, it's not directly doing me or, really,
anyone, any harm, but it's still wrong.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. In some cases, you are forced to
accept some level of wrong in order to permit more right, so to speak,
but this doesn't make the wrong you're doing any less wrong, just
necessary or justifiable. Taxation being my usual example: it's wrong
to take money from people, by implicit threat of force; if anyone else
did it, it'd be robbery or a protection racket. But SOMETHING like it
is basically necessary to keep a large society running, due to the
Prisoner's Dilemma effect. If you don't like so political an example,
there's plenty of others. Shooting someone dead is wrong, but
protecting other people you're responsible for is a good thing, so if
you shoot someone dead who's trying to hurt you and yours, that's a
greater good for a lesser wrong.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 20, 11:45 am, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That's better, but I don't think anyone was really trying to make
>>the argument that if you can hide it, no longer wrong. Rather, I
>>see the argument that wrong depends on consequences. Do you argue
>>that wrong has nothing to do with consequences?
>
>
> Exactly; moreover I claim the consequences have to go beyond the
> hypothetical or merely trivial to trump the right of privacy.

And I'm not trumping your right to privacy, just noting that if you
do certain things, you're doing something wrong. I'm not justifying
the stupidities of, say, the MPAA/RIAA and others with regard to
copyright infringements which their own actions make more likely.

I just don't let the downloaders pretend they're NOT doing something
wrong. They are, and if they don't know it, they should. It may be a
very LITTLE wrongdoing, compared to murder or bank robbery, but it's
still wrong and they should be aware of the fact that they are
choosing to do something they should not do.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>
>> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
>> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
>> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.
>
>The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
>games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
>and make things sound worse than they are.

How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
games? Those terms go back even further than copyright arguments, and
you have failed to demonstrate they do not apply except via words
games suitable for an elementary school child rather than in terms one
would expect to be used in a serious philosophical and/or legal
debate.

>One might compare that to reefer madness or the abominable and detestable
>crime against nature. People fall for that kind of propaganda all too
>readily, and it would appear you have.

ROTFLMAO. The ultimate argument technique! "You do not believe as we
do! You are a tool of the great propaganda conspiracy! You are
therefore wrong by definition!"

As I've said before - it isn't very hard to understand why a lot of
folks don't take the calls for copyright reform seriously when you see
the terms they are couched in.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>>> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
>>> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
>>> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.
>>
>>The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
>>games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
>>and make things sound worse than they are.
>
>How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
>income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
>games?

Because nothing is actually _removed_. Saying "My current and future income
might be less because of $CIRCUMSTANCE" is different than saying "$CIRCUMSTANCE
has stolen some of my current and future income", whether $CIRCUMSTANCE is
"I have had medical problems and not been able to work for a month", "someone
is selling copies of a book identical to mine", or "the publisher I've been
working with has gone out of business".

Current and future income are neither one guaranteed, nor are they natural
rights, and acting like actions that dimininish them are "stealing" is
a semantic game of nearly the worst kind. (At least you're not slipping a
pun in there.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> You can make a copy of my work without my knowledge and show it to
>your friends and claim you did it. If no one who actually knows my
>work sees you doing this, it's not directly doing me or, really,
>anyone, any harm, but it's still wrong.

However, I think even you will agree that it's _more_ wrong than "you can make
a copy of my work without my knowledge, show it to your friends, acknowledge
that Sea Wasp / Ryk E. Spoor wrote it, and claim that you did the copying".
Yes? Let's not slip the "claim you were the author" claim into the middle
of this already-byzantine argument.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Dec 21, 10:02 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
> income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
> games?  Those terms go back even further than copyright arguments, and
> you have failed to demonstrate they do not apply except via words
> games suitable for an elementary school child rather than in terms one
> would expect to be used in a serious philosophical and/or legal
> debate.

Removing current and future income from someone can indeed be
stealing. For example, I might steal a royalty check from an author's
mailbox.

If someone uploads the text of an author's book to USENET, he has
indeed done something inimical to the author's interests, if that
means that now people can read the book without having to purchase a
copy under circumstances that would lead to compensation reaching the
author.

As well as doing something inimical to the author's interests, he has
indeed done something wrong, violative of the author's rights. But
this is only true _because_ the nations in which we live, acting with
the consent of the people they govern, have instituted a copyright
law. We have made a covenant with our authors and inventors and other
creative people that they shall be entitled to the control of their
creations for a designated period of time, in hopes of encouraging
effort in enriching the world through art and invention.

For people to break an agreement that was made by the society they
lived in... before they even reached voting age... is still a kind of
dishonesty. But it's the same kind of dishonesty as is involved in not
paying one's taxes.

This means that copyright infringement is a bigger threat than, say,
shoplifting, because it isn't as strongly perceived as wrong.

But it has another consequence as well. Since copyright violation
breaches a right that is contingent on society's agreement, this
agreement in itself is not something to which authors have an absolute
right.

This means that it is legitimate to debate whether some extension to
the copyright law is desirable in view of broader social interests. We
can argue that perhaps this proposed copyright enforcement measure is
too intrusive, and we should instead tolerate the copyright violations
that will take place without it.

If copyright violation were like stealing - or murder, rape, or
battery - then such a debate would not be legitimate. It would be like
trying to argue in favor of denying a racial minority its fundamental
human rights for other people's benefit.

Any society that decides to institute or continue slavery is wrong. A
society that decides it doesn't need more poetry, and so it is going
to drop copyright protection for poems, is, on the other hand, acting
entirely within its rights.

That's why, when laws like the DMCA are being debated, this
distinction, hair-splitting as it may seem, has to be kept in focus.

John Savard

Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:56 pm, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> > Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > People seem to forget that there is a long, bad history of abusive
> > > laws, and to wish to treat the question in a vacuum. I suggest a look
> > > at the history of laws regulating conduct in private.
> >
> > Which is why I oppose the DMCA, limitations on first sale, or actively
> > enforcing rules on *trivial* copying. But open P2P file sharing on the
> > internet isn't by any stretch of the imagination private... it's
> > republication.
>
> There's an argument that p2p isn't private, since it involves waving
> your IP address around in cyberspace. But that tends to run aground on
> all these grandmas being charged with sharing hip-hop music, or people
> being required to hand over their disk drives--it looks as if it is
> private enough that the snoops aren't able to snoop very well, and are
> willing to intrude in ways which involve clear violations of personal
> liberty.

There are two sets of issues here - one is whether "republishing" something
via p2p services is morally acceptable (IMO it is not)/ought to be legal
(IMO it shouldn't), and the other is what degree of enforcement those laws
should have, both in terms of potential invasion of privacy to detect and
prosecute infringement, and in terms of the degree of penalty that those
laws carry with them.

One can very readily object to the RIAA's tactics and think present
maximum legal penalties for noncommerial infringement tend to be excessive
at the same time as agreeing that it SHOULD be illegal to violate copyright
(or at least violate copyright on a nontrivial scale, or whatever.)

> But the argument won't extend to downloading from Usenet. That's not
> republication for the downloader, only perhaps the uploader.

My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
(or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.

> The same for downloading from a free file sending service. By the way, why
> haven't I been hearing screams of agony about those? Surely RIAA should be
> objecting: you can upload a bunch of mp3 files, and then tell 100 of your
> best friends about it.

Good question.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 10:02?am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> > How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
> > income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
> > games? ?Those terms go back even further than copyright arguments, and
> > you have failed to demonstrate they do not apply except via words
> > games suitable for an elementary school child rather than in terms one
> > would expect to be used in a serious philosophical and/or legal
> > debate.
>
> Removing current and future income from someone can indeed be
> stealing. For example, I might steal a royalty check from an author's
> mailbox.

The theft there is of a physical check, though - cashing it is (arguably)
more fraud than theft, or is at least a second theft (and might well be
prevented if the first theft is noticed, and a "stop payment" placed on the
original.)

Stealing a credit card and using it is a much clearer example, since in
general it's the merchant who ends up eating the cost of stolen cards.

> law. We have made a covenant with our authors and inventors and other
> creative people that they shall be entitled to the control of their
> creations for a designated period of time, in hopes of encouraging
> effort in enriching the world through art and invention.

I'm not sure that's an accurate way to put it; as far as I can see, it's a
one way grant of rights from the government, for good purpose, but like most
such things, it's "a take it or leave it" set of conditions and not a
contract that's subject to negotiation. Of course, in a little-D democratic
society like ours, "authors and inventors and other creative people" have
the same right to petition the government to change those conditions as
anyone else.

> Any society that decides to institute or continue slavery is wrong. A
> society that decides it doesn't need more poetry, and so it is going
> to drop copyright protection for poems, is, on the other hand, acting
> entirely within its rights.
>
> That's why, when laws like the DMCA are being debated, this
> distinction, hair-splitting as it may seem, has to be kept in focus.

Yup.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote:
> On 2007-12-20 15:58:23 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:
> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> No, actually counterfeiting, unlike copyright infringement, _is_
> >> stealing.
> > [..]
> >> So counterfeiting is a means of committing theft through fraud.
> >>
> >> Now, if you were making gold bars by alchemy, then you would have a
> >> comparison...
> >
> > Elsewhere in the thread, someone else objected to that.
>
> No, I said that if you could do it, go ahead.
>
> I objected to duplication of my valuable possessions (defined as
> possessions whose value would be diminished by such duplication) via a
> process that required the valuable possession to be part of the process.
> If you can create gold by alchemy, have a party, and let me know the
> recipe.

Someone specifically mentioned currency or gold bullion, outside the context of
items of uniqueness. I'm not sure it was you.

To resume the earlier example, though, should I take it that you'd have no
objection to the following: there are exactly two of some very valuable
object, of which you own one. The other one is owned by someone else, and
that owner allows me to scan it, and then produce molecularly exact
duplicates to be mass-produced... pretty much destroying any uniqueness
value that either one had.

....?

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On 2007-12-21 14:01:15 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:

> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> wrote:
>> On 2007-12-20 15:58:23 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) said:
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> No, actually counterfeiting, unlike copyright infringement, _is_
>>>> stealing.
>>> [..]
>>>> So counterfeiting is a means of committing theft through fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you were making gold bars by alchemy, then you would have a
>>>> comparison...
>>>
>>> Elsewhere in the thread, someone else objected to that.
>>
>> No, I said that if you could do it, go ahead.
>>
>> I objected to duplication of my valuable possessions (defined as
>> possessions whose value would be diminished by such duplication) via a
>> process that required the valuable possession to be part of the process.
>> If you can create gold by alchemy, have a party, and let me know the
>> recipe.
>
> Someone specifically mentioned currency or gold bullion, outside the context of
> items of uniqueness. I'm not sure it was you.

I mentioned gold bullion, at least.

> To resume the earlier example, though, should I take it that you'd have no
> objection to the following: there are exactly two of some very valuable
> object, of which you own one. The other one is owned by someone else, and
> that owner allows me to scan it, and then produce molecularly exact
> duplicates to be mass-produced... pretty much destroying any uniqueness
> value that either one had.
>
> ...?

I might be annoyed, but I can't compel that other guy not to grant permission.

Just like, if I own a stud horse who gets high fees, and one of his
sons turns out to be really good at producing high-quality offspring,
I've got no kick.

kdb

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:38:56 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, Sea Wasp
<seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote,
>David Harmon wrote:
>> Do you argue that wrong has nothing to do with consequences?
>
> Certainly not with direct consequences. I can steal a grape from the
>supermarket and if no one sees me there's not really any consequences
>to anyone. They lose hundreds per day on the floor. It's still wrong.

But see, in that you are arguing against yourself. There is a real
direct consequence to stealing the grape: the supermarket no longer
has it to sell to somebody. You have merely managed to hide it in
the noise of squashed grapes. Hiding it doesn't make it right. It's
a perfect example of what Gene is NOT defending.

> You can make a copy of my work without my knowledge and show it to
>your friends and claim you did it.

That's lying, and I don't think I've seen anybody defending that.

> Right is right, wrong is wrong.

But that statement is of no help in deciding which is which.

..

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>>>> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
>>>> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
>>>> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.
>>>
>>>The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
>>>games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
>>>and make things sound worse than they are.
>>
>>How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
>>income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
>>games?

<snippage twaddle>

Ah yes - what a response to charge of semantic games! More semantic
games!

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>Any society that decides to institute or continue slavery is wrong. A
>society that decides it doesn't need more poetry, and so it is going
>to drop copyright protection for poems, is, on the other hand, acting
>entirely within its rights.

ROTFLMAO. A decision is to keep or release slaves in a societal
decision the same as one to enforce copyright. Both are completely
within the rights of 'society' and neither is inherently wrong or
inherently right.

>That's why, when laws like the DMCA are being debated, this
>distinction, hair-splitting as it may seem, has to be kept in focus.

This isn't a hair-splitting distinction. It is handwaving sophistry.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Dec 21, 5:41 am, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> I just don't let the downloaders pretend they're NOT doing something
> wrong. They are, and if they don't know it, they should.

Whether they are doing wrong appears to depend on your ethical theory.
While I can see some force to rule utilitarian or social contract
arguments, I'm pretty much an act utilitarian. I also see some
relevance in the reciprocity or Golden Rule argument--if it would
bother you were the roles were reversed, then it must be wrong--for
you.

However, from an act utilitarian point of view, if a pimply-faced fan
downloads a bunch of mp3s which make him happy, since no concrete,
demonstrable harm comes to anyone else, it's morally correct. It only
becomes evil if he actually plays the mp3s, which might cause someone
to listen to them.

If the stakes are raised and Mom gets dragged into Federal court, so
that you and me are forced to pay for it, and especially if she gets
clobbered, that is a big negative from a utilitarian point of view.
But the onus falls on the plantiff; I don't think the kid was
expecting it.

On Dec 21, 9:02 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
> income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
> games?

That's not what the discussion is about. No such removal is taking
place, and even if it was, why do you have a right to control my
actions for your benefit? If you have such a right, you should have
the right to enslave me, as otherwise I can remove the current and
future income you might have obtained by my working for you for free.

You must, of course, demonstrate you have a *right* to this supposed
lost revenue, and should I think show it actually exists.

> Those terms go back even further than copyright arguments

Cite?

On Dec 21, 12:21 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> If someone uploads the text of an author's book to USENET, he has
> indeed done something inimical to the author's interests, if that
> means that now people can read the book without having to purchase a
> copy under circumstances that would lead to compensation reaching the
> author.

Pure speculation. We don't know this to be true, and the experience of
Baen Books suggests it is in general false.

Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
><snippage twaddle>
>
>Ah yes - what a response to charge of semantic games! More semantic games!

Well, you can keep playing the semantic games if you want ... and I note
that you snipped my _entire answer_ to you, leaving only the headers that
show I did answer. I believe this means that not only do I win, I've got
extra successes for the next two rolls you try to make - right, Terry?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Nate Edel wrote:
> My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
> (or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
> oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
> else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.

How do you distinguish between uploader & downloader in bittorrent?

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:

> Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>
>><snippage twaddle>
>>
>>Ah yes - what a response to charge of semantic games! More semantic games!
>
> Well, you can keep playing the semantic games if you want ... and I note
> that you snipped my _entire answer_ to you, leaving only the headers that
> show I did answer. I believe this means that not only do I win, I've got
> extra successes for the next two rolls you try to make - right, Terry?
>

Selective and non-representative snippage is Derek's standard
practice.

Which is why I plonked him a week or so ago.

Its too bad, really, because there are technical subjects on which he
really does know quite a lot.

In the end though, the aggravation wasn't worth the information.

--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lathamr@us.ibm.com

On Dec 21, 6:10 pm, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 12:21 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > If someone uploads the text of an author's book to USENET, he has
> > indeed done something inimical to the author's interests, if that
> > means that now people can read the book without having to purchase a
> > copy under circumstances that would lead to compensation reaching the
> > author.
>
> Pure speculation. We don't know this to be true, and the experience of
> Baen Books suggests it is in general false.

It would be pure speculation if I said that scads of people _would_ do
so, and the author would definitely lose $X amount of money. But what
is made *possible* by an uploaded copy of a book is an obvious fact.

John Savard

On Dec 21, 8:13 pm, tkmail...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Nate Edel wrote:
> > My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
> > (or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
> > oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
> > else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.
>
> How do you distinguish between uploader & downloader in bittorrent?

Whoever started the torrent, presumably.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:13 pm, tkmail...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Nate Edel wrote:
>>> My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
>>> (or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
>>> oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
>>> else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.
>> How do you distinguish between uploader & downloader in bittorrent?
>
> Whoever started the torrent, presumably.

How do you identify him for legal culpability? I mean - there is one
logically, but generally unenforceable.

Anyway - am off usenet for a fortnight. Have a happy new year.

On 2007-12-21, Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>>
>>> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
>>> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
>>> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.
>>
>>The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
>>games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
>>and make things sound worse than they are.
>
> How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
> income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
> games?

current and future income are not property. If I open a store next to
one selling comparable items, and sell them cheaper, I've done nothing
wrong, morally or legally.

> Those terms go back even further than copyright arguments, and
> you have failed to demonstrate they do not apply except via words
> games suitable for an elementary school child rather than in terms one
> would expect to be used in a serious philosophical and/or legal
> debate.

Yes, they go back further, but not as applied to copyright. Violating
copyright is very different in terms of methods and effects from any of
the three terms. I can see a (fairly close) analogy in the cases of
the terms "stealing" and "thievery", but even those obscure the issues
of what sorts of copyright laws are beneficial for society and which are
not. "Piracy" is even farther afield, and adds no useful insight.

>>One might compare that to reefer madness or the abominable and detestable
>>crime against nature. People fall for that kind of propaganda all too
>>readily, and it would appear you have.
>
> ROTFLMAO. The ultimate argument technique! "You do not believe as we
> do! You are a tool of the great propaganda conspiracy! You are
> therefore wrong by definition!"

There doesn't need to be a secret conspiracy. The propoganda is quite open.
And since you continue to use the words in ways that make it hard to
think about copyright except in terms of physical property, it's
successful in framing the debate.

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

On 2007-12-22, Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
> dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Dec 20, 10:55 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>>>>> And one must wonder about the motivations of folks who wish to
>>>>> redefine terms with a long heritage WRT copyright/IP protection
>>>>> ("piracy", "thievery") based on sophmoric semantic games.
>>>>
>>>>The long heritage in question is a heritage of sophomoric semantic
>>>>games on the part of copyright proponents trying to confuse the issue
>>>>and make things sound worse than they are.
>>>
>>>How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
>>>income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
>>>games?
>
><snippage twaddle>
>
> Ah yes - what a response to charge of semantic games! More semantic
> games!

Not semantic "games" at all, but a reasonable discussion of how the
things referred to actually differ.

Why are you such an *******?

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

tkmailers@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Nate Edel wrote:
> > My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
> > (or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
> > oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
> > else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.
>
> How do you distinguish between uploader & downloader in bittorrent?

You don't HAVE to enable feeding blocks back upstream.

Not that it is a terribly useful application of the law to go after
individual uploaders when all they're doing is sharing a few blocks from
what they're downloading. Nor is it reasonable to hold such people should be
liable for ridiculous fines/punitive damages...

On the legal side, shutting down trackers that is probably a more productive
w step towards handling this; on the individual side, convincing them to
behave in a legal and responsible manner is probably more important in the
end.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >Any society that decides to institute or continue slavery is wrong. A
> >society that decides it doesn't need more poetry, and so it is going
> >to drop copyright protection for poems, is, on the other hand, acting
> >entirely within its rights.
>
> ROTFLMAO. A decision is to keep or release slaves in a societal
> decision the same as one to enforce copyright. Both are completely
> within the rights of 'society' and neither is inherently wrong or
> inherently right.

The powers of a nation-state are not necessarily the "rights of society."
Nations, or even their subdivisions, have plenty of things that in their
power which are clearly and absolutely *wrong.*

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 6:10 pm, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 12:21 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > If someone uploads the text of an author's book to USENET, he has
> > > indeed done something inimical to the author's interests, if that
> > > means that now people can read the book without having to purchase a
> > > copy under circumstances that would lead to compensation reaching the
> > > author.
> >
> > Pure speculation. We don't know this to be true, and the experience of
> > Baen Books suggests it is in general false.
>
> It would be pure speculation if I said that scads of people _would_ do
> so, and the author would definitely lose $X amount of money. But what
> is made *possible* by an uploaded copy of a book is an obvious fact.

OTOH, possibility is not action. If you don't lock your car, and leave your
keys in it, it is them possible for someone to steal it. But if nobody DOES
steal it, then your car has not been stolen.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Aaron Denney <wnoise@ofb.net> wrote:
> On 2007-12-21, Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
> > income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
> > games?
>
> current and future income are not property. If I open a store next to
> one selling comparable items, and sell them cheaper, I've done nothing
> wrong, morally or legally.

Generally no, but if you are doing so at a loss just to injure the other
vendor, it may or may not be illegal... but it's certainly immoral.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On 2007-12-24, Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> Aaron Denney <wnoise@ofb.net> wrote:
>> On 2007-12-21, Derek Lyons <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > How is calling removing something (if nothing else, current and future
>> > income) from someone "stealing", "thievery", or "piracy" semantic
>> > games?
>>
>> current and future income are not property. If I open a store next to
>> one selling comparable items, and sell them cheaper, I've done nothing
>> wrong, morally or legally.
>
> Generally no, but if you are doing so at a loss just to injure the other
> vendor, it may or may not be illegal... but it's certainly immoral.

Fair point.

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:56:29 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>it's republication.

If a republic is good, isn't republication similarly good?

Jasper

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:39:34 -0800 (PST), Gene Ward Smith
<genewardsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 8:13 pm, tkmail...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Nate Edel wrote:
>> > My own view is that the legal culpability should be limited to the uploader
>> > (or person hosting the p2p node exposing songs) although the downloader
>> > oughtn't be doing it in the "don't take advantage of or encouraging someone
>> > else's bad behavior" sense, without threat of legal action.
>>
>> How do you distinguish between uploader & downloader in bittorrent?
>
>Whoever started the torrent, presumably.

In peer to peer, everyone is an uploader. I fail to see the problem.


Jasper

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:32:20 GMT, fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:

>A decision is to keep or release slaves [is] completely
>within the rights of 'society' and [..] is [not] inherently wrong or
>inherently right.

SRSLY?

Jasper

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:13:25 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>(it would have to be a
>very _good_ counterfeit to withdraw gold from Fort Knox).

It'd have to be a lot more than that, you can't 'withdraw gold from Fort
Knox' with a real one either.

Jasper

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:15 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>To resume the earlier example, though, should I take it that you'd have no
>objection to the following: there are exactly two of some very valuable
>object, of which you own one. The other one is owned by someone else, and
>that owner allows me to scan it, and then produce molecularly exact
>duplicates to be mass-produced... pretty much destroying any uniqueness
>value that either one had.

It would be a financial blow, but I don't see how you'd have a leg to
stand on, legally or morally.

Jasoer

Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:15 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> >To resume the earlier example, though, should I take it that you'd have no
> >objection to the following: there are exactly two of some very valuable
> >object, of which you own one. The other one is owned by someone else, and
> >that owner allows me to scan it, and then produce molecularly exact
> >duplicates to be mass-produced... pretty much destroying any uniqueness
> >value that either one had.
>
> It would be a financial blow, but I don't see how you'd have a leg to
> stand on, legally or morally.

Is "you" in that case the person with the other original, or the person
doing the mass producing?

As for a financial blow, that might well be true only on paper, if neither
owner intended to sell.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:13:12 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:15 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>> >To resume the earlier example, though, should I take it that you'd have no
>> >objection to the following: there are exactly two of some very valuable
>> >object, of which you own one. The other one is owned by someone else, and
>> >that owner allows me to scan it, and then produce molecularly exact
>> >duplicates to be mass-produced... pretty much destroying any uniqueness
>> >value that either one had.
>>
>> It would be a financial blow, but I don't see how you'd have a leg to
>> stand on, legally or morally.
>
>Is "you" in that case the person with the other original, or the person
>doing the mass producing?

The former.

>As for a financial blow, that might well be true only on paper, if neither
>owner intended to sell.

I don't think that's really the case, though. Execution value of your
assets does matter even if you never *intend* to sell them -- because your
creditors and/or heirs might well want or be forced to do so.

Something like it happened with natural pearls. After cultured pearls came
on the market, they took a nosedive in value. While the Real Thing has
recovered somewhat in price and is significantly more expensive than
culture, the adjusted-for-inflation price of natural pearls is nowhere
near what it was in the late 19th.


Jasper