ra: And they still can, how does that negate the need for intellectual property rights? That does not negate the need for intellectual property rights. the only issue here is who's need and what those "rights" consist of.
Those rights consist of coercion/opression imposed on me to ensure benefits for certain individuals - some authors of the intellectual creations and some people profiting from their creations.
Sure, there is the need for such people for intellectual property rights - just like there was the need for slave-owners for the need of slave-owning rights. All I am saying those rights are not legitimate.
Throughout history man had NO rights yet he was able to protect his life and property. Many people - including the writers of teh Declaration of Independence - believe that people inherently posess inalianable rights. Those rights are often violated but that does not change the basic definition.
You do not posess your life because someone does not kill you. You posess your life inherently even though someone may violate it. Same with rights.
There is no difference. Stealing the content of the novel renders it worthless. Stealing a piece of bread prevents the former owner from sustaining himself. Stealing the content of a novel does not prevent the owner from reading it.
So the "worth" you are referring to is not intrinisc to the novel or it's direct use. The worth is in the mechansm of oppression that makes people pay for whatever is arbitrarily defined as property.
Says who? Ghengis Khan? Real mature. How about the body of political and philosophical works of the western civilisation for the last 3000 years?
Are you saying there should be no definition of property except the one that you care to invent?
The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries" . You will need to amend the Constitution to fit this pointy headed idea. You must be confuising the Constitution with the Revealed Word of God. Only the latter one is absolute truth.
The Consititution is a document writted by a bunch of 18th century politicians.
The founders of the US deemed it necessary to restrict the natural rights of americans by creating the artificial concept of "intellectual property". The fact they did so indicates their full understanding that they are creating a new imposition on the freedoms and rights of the people.
Just like they allowed the government to restrict the natural rights of people to trade their porperty - by allowing the government to control the trade.
They deemed it worth implementing. So what? They made a lot of decisions based on their current state of knowlege. They approved of slavery among other things or restriction of trade to promote country's welfare.
I am not arguing about the content of one declining country's document to which nobody pays any attention nowdays.
I am arguing that:
First, intellectual rights concept is not legitimate because it involves unjust oppression of other people.
And second, that the perceived benefits from such concept are far from obvious and may be causing more harm than good to the creative progress.
miko
