From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Oct 27 2001 - 09:22:13 MDT
"Alex F. Bokov" wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
> > I don't think that downloading without paying is theft; I think it's
> > freeloading on the content-production system. I think that if you call it
> > "theft" you simply confuse a generation that has enough vague guilt
> > feelings on its mind already.
>
> Guilt is the least of our problems. What I find disturbing is how
> intellectual property apologists simply ignore the invasion of privacy
> and curtailing of free expression that is resulting from IP laws
> *already* on the books.
>
> Why is protection of publishing industries more important to American
> politicians than ammendments I, IV, V, and X?
How does the 1st Amendment apply? Your right of free expression does not
mean you have the right to express other people's expressions without
their consent.
The 4th? Considering an artist who never makes any money because his art
is stolen by millions of ungrateful fans starves to death, I propose
that those convicted of intellectual property theft must live in a
homeless shelter with food stamps and government cheese. That is surely
not cruel and unusual. It is no worse than their victims got.
The 5th? dont' see it
The 10th? that is states rights.
An amendment does not eliminate something written into the body of the
Constitution unless it specifically says it does. One could say that
intellectual property rights, because they exist within the
constitution, are the 0th Amendment rights.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:41 MST