From: cyber.trekker@metauniverse.net
SFAM wrote:
>
> "Thomas Mayer" wrote in message
> news:drn5qg$3mf$1@online.de...
>> SFAM wrote:
>>> [snip] If everything is free (no patents),
>>> the incentive for creating wealth (cell phones, cell phone networks,
>>> emoticons on cell phones, for instance) dissipates rapidly. I think
>>> you'd find that this outcome infringes on your natural rights far more
>>> than having
>>> to pay for stuff.
>>
>> I'm not sure about that. If inventions were only made, when you can get
>> money from them, then for a long time in human history no inventions
>> would have been made. It's the same argument that the copyright industry
>> uses for using DRM and suing P2P users. I think, most inventions, music
>> etc are made by people that just try to express themselves, though I
>> have to admit, it takes a lot of money to develop a product from the
>> inventions, so you have a point, if you only think in a
>> pseudo-free-market sense, the way the world economy works nowadays.
>
> Clearly there were inventions prior to patent laws or even monetary
> systems,
> so I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Inventions traditionally
> are
> based on someone wanting to fill a need. Warfare innovations over the
> last 5000 years, or the development of the printing press are fine example
> of such a need. But the part about inventions being made by people just
> trying
> to express themselves, I'm afraid I'm going to quibble with that. There
> are many many many starving scifi writers who would probably quibble with
> that
> too. To think that people who create stuff don't want to get paid for
> their time is a little absurd. If I were to take that on its face, would
> this also mean that musicians shouldn't be charging people admission to
> see their
> shows? Drug companies certainly wouldn't be developing drugs without
> anticipated revenue, etc. I think we could go down the line to most
> inventions today (or even 200 years ago) and find very similar things.
>
> Incidentally, this is very a different question from whether multimedia
> companies are screwing the performers (or writers) out of their income.
> In
> many cases, this is clearly happening. In others its not. But to blame
> this on ownership of property or patents as a whole seems a little
> strange.
I speak not only of you but to most of the respondants, all answers to my
replies are basically seen in the context of what is known or thought to
have been in the history of this planet.
Humans are obsessed with money and their systems. Few can see beyond both
money and the systems of the past and the present. All knowledge and
understanding is seen in the context of such and allusions drawn from them.
In the same vein, all justifications are drawn from the familiar. Rare and
fortunate is the person who can see beyond these.
You can quibble, as you put it, with whatever you like. In the end, you are
just arguing from the familiar utilising partial knowledge and even less
understanding. Learn to extend your vision beyond this and then you may
begin to comprehend that of which I speak. Until then, your arguments are
empty. Anyone can argue from the known by utilising familiar themes and the
rigidly preconceived ideas the sleepers accept so absolutely.
To accept patents, copyright and IP as absolutely unavoidable is absurd.
These don't have to exist. That they do exist is solely due to humans
adopting them as the route to take. But this comprehension is beyond you,
which is proven by your fanciful arguments. Yet again, you miss the point
and in your arguments seek only to justify the prevailing system. What does
this tell me about you? It tells me a lot. It tells me, for instance, that
you are currently incapable of thinking for yourself and that cyberpunk has
so far failed to open your mind to alternative possibilities as a distinct
reality in life.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
