Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
I think the point Giggleton ultimately is trying to make is that if someone has a piece of information you really can't tell them what to do or not to do with that information. With physical books there were already constraints on copying and distribution. With the internet there is no such constraints. The same question could be asked: who are you to decide what someone can and can't do with information they possess? Culture is shared, blah blah blah.
I feel like this has already been discussed. i don't mind having the same discussions, but I need time between them. You wouldn't read the same book again and again and again and again without some time in-between each rereading. I need time before my I have this discussion again.
As it is, to quote chief Joseph, I am tired. My heart is sick and sad(okay it isn't really sick or sad, but lets be dramatic here). From where the sun now stands, I will post no more forever(just on this thread).
|
His argument is idiotic on its face. He's basically saying that if I write a work of fiction that he could somehow gain knowledge from, then I have no right to keep that book from him if he wants it but refuses to pay for it at the price I set.
What kind of utter bullshit is that? I could gain knowledge of how my neighbors shiny new Jaguar works by taking it from him but I have no right to do it, no matter how much I think, or want it to be true.