Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Can we get back on topic please.
|
The topic seems to be that A thinks activities of type X constitute theft, whilst B thinks that activities of type X do not constitute theft. All seem to agree that activities of type Y constitute theft, and all seem to agree that activities of type Z do not constitute theft.
So the dispute is about what X is going to count as - theft or not theft, and the protagonists adduce arguments to support the claim that X is more like Y than it is like Z, or X is more like Z than it is like Y.
We might think that the way in which things come to count as something is in some way a property of the world - that's just how it is, and we come to know about it by discovering it. However, following the philosopher John Searle, the way in social facts such as whether X constitutes theft come to be known is not by discovery but by social action. If X is some kinds of copying of copyrighted material it seems we are not yet in a position to say whether X counts as theft. Yes, we can call it theft, but that is to use the word "theft" in a way that it has not heretofore been used. But there are things about X which make it a lot like theft.
As much as kennyc will not like this, it is simply indeterminate at this point whether X is to count as theft. It is because it is indeterminate that we have all sorts of inflated talk from government and industry which is aimed at resolving the indeterminacy. But such a resolution has not happened yet.
Embrace the indeterminacy I say
