‘IP’ lunacy
when entering an argument, check your premises.
that advice may reek randroidocity; still good. the founding premise of “intellectual property” is revealed in the name, and it’s false. there is no property right in how others arrange the electrons or vibrations or whatever of their property — regardless of that arrangement mimicking fully one you created. the intellect-as-property school foolishness eventually comes down to a question of violence: will you advocate that someone be punched in the nose for copying with his property how another’s property is arranged. do you assert a right to do so?
in this article the copyblight premise has so waylaid the writer’s direction that, while assuming an air of devil’s advocate, he leaves out the most immediate and obvious kill of the article’s subject (beyond the property problem):
a protested software download is not necessarily a financial loss to the software “rights” scammer.
almost embarrassed to put that in italics, since to the brained it’s trivial. one would be on as solid ground to assert that if i’m staying at a friend’s house with a large library, with every book read i’ve displaced what would’ve been a purchase. c’mon. this is retard material. it’s false to assume that each protested software download is the circumvention of an otherwise inevitable purchase. more important, it’s false to ascribe theft to the particular arrangement of a man’s property.
