Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Really? Who owns the ten commandments?
|
Last I checked, it was Yaweh.
The "natural" argument is an adolescent concept, not a viable legal argument. Humans do not naturally wear clothes, eat potato chips (aka crisps), live in large cities or drive cars. Books, reading, writing, and distributing ebooks for free to millions of your bestest buddies over the Internets are not "natural" conditions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ApK
Cave paintings?
|
Fun fact: Access to many of the cave paintings are in fact restricted, because human activity can severely damage the paintings.
It's also highly likely that the caves, or relevant sections of caves, were originally used exclusively for religious purposes. Access to those sections would have certainly been restricted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ApK
You seem be selectively blind to parts of even what you yourself quote.
|
Uh, no. Allowing learned men to "compose and write books" means the law was motivated by a desire to protect authors.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ApK
Even assuming there is NO societal value to pop music and the like (and I think there actually is) there a huge body of highly significant culture-- art, literature, philosophy-- that you are ever so conveniently choosing to throw out with your particular choice of bathwater.
|
Are you even reading the arguments?
RSE is claiming that people pirate because they are refusing to obey what they perceive as an unjust law.
I'm refuting this with the observation that the overwhelming majority of what gets pirated is already available without restriction, without DRM, and would
still be protected by a 28-year copyright term. The motivation is not protest, it's the desire for Free Stuff. Protest is a rationalization, not a true motive.