cc wrote:
> On Jun 24, 5:04 pm, Homer <use...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>
>> > AP: Others Who Use Our Work For Free Are Stealing... Now Who Wants To
>> > Provide Content To Us For Free?
>>
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> [...]
>> > | AP and other newspapers complaining about people "stealing" their
>> > | coverage should actually be paying the people who make the news.
>> > | After all, aren't they really creating the "content"?
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> This is a perfect example of how knowledge is inherited, cumulative,
>> and derivative, and therefore can never be legitimately claimed as a
>> person's (or company's) exclusive property. To do so is a blatant lie.
>
> I own a few material objects that are inherited. Are they not my
> exclusive property? I own a few material objects that are cumulination
> of time (among other things). Are they not my exclusive property? I
> own many derivative material objects. Are they not my exclusive
> property? How is knowledge different?
Sure you own those material objects - however if someone were to make and
sell identical items you wouldn't then sue them for copying your material
items. That's the difference, you can sue someone for selling a copy of
your knowledge without you losing that knowledge, you can only sue someone
for selling your material objects if they've stolen the original items.
|
|
