179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

RE: [idm] Indie Ethics

2 messages · 2 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
2003-03-12 20:17John Reading RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
└─ 2003-03-12 20:53pixilated RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2003-03-12 20:17John ReadingLOL! You used the "OK" Quote: > The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integ
From:
John Reading
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:17:05 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <5C7C936BF3522E448C5F0A0BF6E300C5EFCCED@usispex00001.na.didata.local>
LOL! You used the "OK" Quote:
quoted 2 lines The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral> The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral > to the issue of whether it's okay to download music for free or not.
The quote is still in error, just like downloading music for free is. Take the copyright away and the ownership remains as does the theft. That free record offer still stands, you need a cd or record player though.
quoted 2 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message----- > From: pixilated [mailto:pixilated@alum.dartmouth.org]
quoted 14 lines Do you understand the meaning of legitimacy? The issue of downloading> > > Do you understand the meaning of legitimacy? The issue of downloading > music for free is only an issue because of the construction > of ownership > of that music. It seems to me that you are using "okay" in > terms of some > transcendent moral standard from which it would follow that if someone > produces a musical work, he should get paid for it if he wants to be > paid for its use since it's his. This begs the question of *ownership* > of that music in whatever form. (This is an example of petitio > principii.) > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-03-12 20:53pixilatedYou're still "reasoning" circularly. There is no universal idea of what theft is. Precedin
From:
pixilated
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:53:28 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
Reply to:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <01c601c2e8d9$6f6432a0$f74eaa81@pocketfig>
You're still "reasoning" circularly. There is no universal idea of what theft is. Preceding the conception of theft is that of ownership, as one cannot steal if there is not property to be stolen. If the construction of ownership is problematic, then how can the construction of theft not be as well? I never said laws defined morality. The law defines what is theft and what is not. Do you deny that there is any question about what constitutes rightful ownership? -----Original Message----- From: John Reading [mailto:john.reading@us.didata.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:17 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics LOL! You used the "OK" Quote:
quoted 2 lines The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral> The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral > to the issue of whether it's okay to download music for free or not.
The quote is still in error, just like downloading music for free is. Take the copyright away and the ownership remains as does the theft. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org