From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 05:20:19 MDT
On Monday, June 10, 2002 2:38 AM Giu1i0 Prisc0 g2002@prisco.info wrote:
> The trend is that the evolution of technology makes it impossible
> to enforce any IP rule. Now we have free music and movies on
> the net with P2P systems like kazaa, we are going to see more
> and more of it. Books are more difficult to put in electronic format,
> but that will also come. How authors can make money then? A
> very non-libertarian position: perhaps creative production of
> literature music and movies should be recognized as a
> public utility and compensated with TAX MONEY.
The question would then be: If intellectual property is indefensible,
why have it at all? If we are nto to have it at all, then why should
anyone get any money for it? I.e., if it doesn't exist -- using
existence very loosely here -- then why should anyone benefit as if it
did?
A counter argument to the indefensibility thesis could be that ways to
break into people's houses, steal their cars, and take their lunch money
exist. Why not get rid of property all together? Taken to an extreme,
one might even say that since rape, slavery, and murder can be
committed, why be against these?
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST