[H-GEN] Linux games are still proprietory

[Trent WADDINGTON]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 ben.carlyle at invensys.com wrote:

> Copyright infringement doesn't entirely fit the classical interpretation
> of theft, but there's something happening when a copy is made that's like
> theft. When I copy something you have, I reduce the value of your copy. If
> there is only one copy of something in the world and I must come to you to
> use that copy then your copy is very valuable. When another copy appears I
> now have a choice. You've lost your monopoly position and now market
> forces come into play. Another copy is made, and then another. Soon enough
> the market forces stop applying because we've moved all the way from
> monopoly ownership to the ownership of a mere commodity. Your copy is as
> worthless as all of mine, and all I did was copy it. I therefore deprive
> you of something valuable and replace it with something worthless, despite
> the fact that it's exactly the same object you began the excercise with.

This is the best argument I've read for copying == theft.  In fact, it's
the *only* sensible argument that I've read for copying == theft, even if
it is more "copying is like theft".  Bravo.

However, market dilution happens with physical things too.  In fact, you
hint at it with your use of the word "commodity".  Competitors dilute
markets and reduce the value of things.  Are we to believe that producers
of competing products are thieves too?

Trent


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/