On 2009-06-28, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Gregory Shearman spake thusly:
>> On 2009-06-28, Ezekiel <Zeke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile in the real world intellectual property does exist and is
>>> rightfully protected.
>> TwoBeamer translates the "real world" to be the fantasy inside its
>> own mind.
> If it's "right" to protect "Intellectual Property", then maybe Zek would
> care to explain to everyone why this "right" is not permanent, in the so
> -called "real world" or otherwise.
> In fact this "right" is not a right at all, but is a grant of privilege,
> offered as inducement to selfish; greedy hoarders, in concious violation
> of all moral tenets to the contrary, and thus offered only for a limited
> time. This is the compromise of ethics the lawmakers conceded to.
Why shouldn't *everyone* get copyright protection for the product of
their labours? Why should the bathroom attendant lose money because
someone else is "thieving" their copyright by folding towels just like
the original bathroom attendant? Why shouldn't the original chicken
neck-wringer get royalties from everyone who wrings a chicken neck in
the same way...
I mean... it's a *right* isn't it? People should be remunerated in
perpetuity for their original labours, right?
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power