Re: FW: Windows Live and Privacy

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 12/6/06, Bruce Ediger <eballen1 () qwest net> wrote:

> Some philosophical objections to copyright also exist:
> http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
>
> I doubt those will make much impression on you.  The way you phrase your
> question seems to indicate that you believe that "IP rights" should exist
> to protect the ideas that you and/or other people come up with.  That's
> a false basis for reasoning from, at least in terms of copyright law.
> The basis of copyright law is to get people to disclose ideas by giving
> them a short period of state-enforced monopoly, during which the inventor
> can extract monopoly rents.
>
> That's a whole lot different than the concept of intellectual *property*.
> Ideas and concepts basically aren't "property" in the sense that a car
> or a house or a factory building are property.  Your car can be stolen,
> depriving you of the use of it.  However, if someone copies my ideas about
> writing a checker-playing program, neither I nor my program are deprived of
> the use of those ideas.

They made an impression on me the first time I read of them, many
years ago. I've read Hayek and my "favorite founding father" was
Jefferson, who Hayek also appreciated
(http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/ and one with the candle
reference http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001115).

Not sure where you might have pulled your impression of me from,
though. I'm arguing against copyrights in this particular discussion -
but also allowing the need for some IP laws. My ideas on copyright law
do not stray too far from those of the old white slave owners.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.