No, "theft" wasn't "theft" until people agreed to call it "theft." I
didn't say all laws were bad, but in a sense one can see all of them as
something of a sham. They are written by people, and people all have
their own motivations for doing things. That is the price we pay for
living in society. This doesn't mean we have to accept all laws or that
I am not entitled to the benefits of the rule of law just as much as you
are. Why wouldn't someone who helped write a law making it possible for
him to make money have a problem with following it? He is the one who
wanted it. There is clearly a difference between a physical product
containing music that you paid to produce and an electronic
representation of the same music. If I were to take your CD without
paying you for it, that would be depriving you of value which you paid
to create and which you would have to pay to replace. That is different
from having the right to control the distribution of all representations
of that music in any form, regardless of whether you paid to create the
saleable material. You were sarcastically saying that MP3s of music are
just "non-physical ideas." Is that implying that what you're concerned
about is their physical representation? I never challenged your right to
sell that. See what I said above. No, I was not just talking about what
you call sampling, which is really a very narrow construction of what
sampling is doing. Every artistic work references some other work. At
what point do you call it acceptable appropriation, sampling or
plagiarism? These standards are not God-given, nor is the idea that one
has to pay for such ideas. I think you're a sucker because you don't
even see a need to think critically about anything. Criticism and
conflict are how new and possibly useful ideas are created. Maybe you're
not capable thinking critically. If I held the monopoly right to sell
intelligence, I would be selling to you, thus ducats would be
overflowing.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hager [mailto:HagerJW@Healthall.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:54 PM
To: pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org
Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
quoted 1 line Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is.
>Sure, it's theft if that is what the law says theft is.quoted 1 line That doesn't mean that the law isn't a sham
>That doesn't mean that the law isn't a shamquoted 2 lines supported by parties trying to influence
>supported by parties trying to influence
>how the law is written and applied for their own benefit.quoted 1 line You are taking for granted the concept of intellectual property.
>You are taking for granted the concept of intellectual property.quoted 1 line even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see no
>even exist until a few centuries ago. Do you honestly see noquoted 1 line between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and an
>between appropriating a physical object claimed by someone else and anquoted 2 lines How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't appropriated
>How did any artist create his work? You think he hasn't appropriated
>the ideas of others?quoted 3 lines You are accepting a construction of
>You are accepting a construction of
>reality imposed upon you without criticism.
>Way to go, sucker. quoted 2 lines I should copyright intelligence and sell it.
>I should copyright intelligence and sell it.
>God knows I'd make a shitload of money off you.