- n357
- |
- Elder Legendary Member
Yes, I am a hypocrite, and I'm sorry. I really do mean well, but I'm not running on all cylinders.
Everytime someone buys a copy of Halo 2 Vista, a puppy dies.
Posted by: Barnacle_Blast
Posted by: n357
Wow... I never thought I'd see the day that skewed definition would end up in a dictionary.
The reason I downplayed unauthorized copying was my thought that taking someone's belongings, like a car or laptop or whatever really harms a person, but making a copy of something doesn't harm them at all. I abide by the law, but still can't understand how "intellectual property" is ethical.
Basically I don't feel right condemning people for making copies.
Illegally copying the intellectual property of an individual, a company, or organization...etc. is stealing. Stealing is taking property without consent. Intellectual property is property therefore it can be stolen.
Stealing in any form causes harm. Intellectual property is a valuable possession that when stolen induces a feeling of loss. Imposing a feeling of loss is harmful.
I don't think a feeling of loss is life-threatening or usually very harmful. I also think "intellectual property" is an arbitrary term that implies absolute ownership over a thought or idea when neither copyright, trademark or a patent do this. None of those three processes were designed to give ownership to an idea or invention. They were meant to give temporary rights to the author to encourage creativity and innovation. It's mainly the bosses of megacorporations who put money over people's rights that believe anyone can "own" an idea. Just check out the US constitution and you'll see the definitions of copyright and patent don't create owners.