Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
I get confused about whether the debate is revolving around law or morals. I can't keep up.  |
It's a crazy world out there. Quite complicated, have to keep your head screwed on straight.
The point is that initially you described a chess thingy which was a bit confusing ... but in the same way the world is. What is it that IP actually is? What is computer code? What is a file? What is a book? These things are all at the heart of the discussion and there are current (ephemeral as I like to say) laws that attempt to protect various aspects of IP. There are patents, copyright, trade secret and other less definitive laws that are in place with the concept of allowing a creator of IP to benefit(financially or otherwise) from said IP in order to foster creativity. That is the core of all these laws. That is the concept the laws are based on and are intended to implement: To allow the person who creates the IP to benefit (financially) from the product of their creativity.
Seems some people here don't agree with that concept because activities that circumvent the concept negate it. (e.g. copying and distributing IP that belongs to someone else)
The law is an attempt to the concept and unfortunately for most here it seems that the law is the sum total of what is right or wrong. It's not. It's the concept that is import. All I am saying
is give peace a chance
... no wait ... is based on the concept of fostering creativity, of allowing those who create IP to benefit from it. In many ways large and small the digital age gives us the ability to negatively impact this concept of fostering creativity by circumventing an IP creators ability to benefit from it. This ability makes it ever more important that we take our ethics and morality to a higher level, that we change and implement new laws to better implement the concept, to do the right thing.