| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: aland_-at-_striker.ottawa.on.ca (Alan DeKok)
Date: 3 Feb 1999 13:26:18 -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902031303400.21489-100000@fox.flora.ottawa.on.ca>
In article <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902031303400.21489-100000@fox.flora.ottawa.on.ca>, <russell@flora.ottawa.on.ca> wrote: > > One basic question exists: Do you believe that Information has "physical >object like qualities" that enables it to be "owned"? From physics, yes, information *can* be thought of as a physical object, with physical properties just like anything else. That's the reality we live in. Philosophical arguments won't change that fact. > Do you believe that if you came up with an idea (Whether you were > first or not, etc), then you should have the ability to restrict > access to that idea like one can restrict access to a physical > object (Even if someone comes up with the idea independantly, a > concept that doesn't exist for physical objects that cannot exist in > two spaces at the same time). It's not a matter of 'should have the ability', it's that we DO have the ability to restrict access to an idea. There. I just thought up something and didn't tell anyone. There. I just thought up something else, and told someone, after making them promise to keep it a secret. > If you believe ideas can/should be ownable, then you are *NOT* a Free >Software person. You might be an 'Open Source' person or might be a >Freeloader, but you aren't a Free Software person. So sez you. Coming from a religous background, this argument sounds suspiciously like "I know the mind of God, so it's not YOUR opinion versus MY opinion, it's YOUR opinion versus GOD." I find such arguments reprehensible. The basic fact is, ideas ARE ownable. I have ideas which I haven't told you, therefore I own them, and you don't. > Of the replies, I think it was "X" that wrote the most correct >statement: That the timing might be off. It may be we need to have more of >the Open Source and Propriatary people (Those who believe in physical-like >properties for information) recognize the benifits of information sharing >before moving on to the next step. Information HAS physical properties. Saying it ain't so won't help your argument. > Then again, the eventual goal of the Free Software movement is to >totally erradicate the concept of Information Ownership, ... so we can all live in big happy communal nirvana, with One Consciousness for all. Because after all, individual ideas and perferences are evil ownership of information: we must keep everything open. I can't have thoughts which are individual from yours, information must be free! Over my dead body. > and reminding people of this from time to time might be useful or it > might be the Free Software people who might end up being converted > to the 'dark side'. Reminding me of this only serves to terrify me, and to make me work harder to assert my individuality and self-worth. Alan DeKok.
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|