desperation to cling onto what? what will be lost that seems so necessary to keep, makes me wonder.
I’ve been pondering this alot lately due to conversations iwth friends. Pretty much the same lines along your other post.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that people have a large time investment in erroneous ideologies and are scared to let go of it. They thought they had things figured out and are frightened at the notion that they may be wrong and have to figure everything out agian.
Plus I think many folks just like being right, and despise it when someone identifies a flaw in their reasoning. Overall though I think it’s fear, fear for a loss of time?
Yes, then when he doesn’t refrain it is “failure to perform”. Let’s just make sure it is a valid contract.
I didn’t notice a pro-IP argument here that hasn’t been soundly refuted already. The hacking discussion is interesting, but I can’t quite figure it out.
Everyone ought to read this and the links in full if they haven’t…
I absolutely agree. This contract cannot not extend to those who received his copies, though, which was my point.
Of course, and Maxliberty is a parrot. Don’t mind his squawking.
i like what you are thinking about. it is very interesting, good points you bring up.
understand fear. that is crucial. know that it is a storm that passes and then something will be seen with clarity.
I would say whoever brought up human nature they pulled into their turtle shell to reflect the argument away from themselves to hide and as a distraction because it now is about ‘the bad people’. smoke and mirrors. that’s what fear does. only the person that brought up ‘human nature’ in the discussion could specifically answer why within the current context. i’m only left with analogies.
Read the opening pages of the book sometimes. You are limited in how you may use the media, as some of the rights belong to the copyright owner.
The point is that the contract, when obtained from a third party, is invalid.
There is no such thing as. “By reading this you agree to ect…”
You don’t seem to understand. The copyright owner never gave up these rights when he sold the book. Part of the book still belongs to him. Finding it on a park bench does not invalidate his ownership, just like finding his car parked on the street would not allow you to drive away with it.
Yes it did. And the homeless guy who burns the book for a fire is entirely justified.
Such superficial laws are akin to the following.
IF YOU READ THIS TEXT YOU AGREE TO PAY FILC 1,000,000,000 DOLLARS. FAILURE TO PAY WILL RESULT IN FINES AND INTEREST.
Read the post to which you are replying sometime. I’ve bolded a few more words, just so it’s clear. Brian made a copy of the book, and left off the opening pages. There is no reference to the copyright at all. Brian has violated the contact by doing so; this is clear. My question is, how could that contract possibly apply to Charles?
Has anyone, besides me, seen how effective IP laws are in 3rd world countries? [:D]
He never had those rights to begin with.
Hence, how much IP is created there?
Tangible property (TP) laws are not particularly effective there, either. Does that make you reconsider your pro-TP stance, as well?
Very good point, but a pro-IP one, I’m afraid.
Z.
No, it wasn’t a pro-IP point. You need to learn how to not use fallacies. Seriously.
Because the media he is accessing is illegal.
There are many laws that are ineffective in 3rd world countries. That is what keeps them that way.
so… we burn the book. …and for anyone that knows the information contained in the book, that may have read it pre-burning, they require minor lobotomy surgery,… the presence of information in their grey matter is an affront to property rights!
The book doesn’t have to be burned, but it belongs to the copyright holder. It’s impossible to make an identical copy of the book based only on what they have in memory, and anyway the copyright does not bar them from enjoying this information, it bars them from creating another media of it.
their brain is a media