View Single Post
Old 08-15-2012, 09:40 PM   #65
Jozawun
Evangelist
Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jozawun ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Jozawun's Avatar
 
Posts: 490
Karma: 1597460
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Device: Cybook Gen 3, Pocketbook 902, Sony 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeshadow View Post
So what is the basis to decide if a justification IS ethically valid or not?
Without IP protection a creator receives sure payment for 1st copy only. As every copist could ask for. Thus only the transfer from mind to medium is credited. Just the manual and none of the mental part of the creators work. This would declare the creative process worthless. Only by granting "shares" in copies created you honour the fact that without the creators minds work the physical copies wouldn't exist.

IMHO the decision whether we value labour of mind and creativity or if we limit this to physical
activity only is very much a decision based on ethics because if we would limit our judgements to physical consequences only a lot more than property would be differently judged:

No intent or motives checked: there goes the diference between accident, self-defence and murder.
No relevance of feelings: parenting=breeding;
etc.
You cannot be seriously saying that if we decide the moral/ethical value of a person's acts by his intentions, then we must grant monopoly IPRs for his creative work.
Jozawun is offline   Reply With Quote