Comment Re:Gee, I wonder what Slashdot will think (Score 1) 307
Scratching a car increases that rate of entropy effecting it, which will eventually render it useless. "Borrowing" a car for a joy ride produces the same effect as the previous, even if you were kind enough to refill the gas tank. Entropy is a physical trait, which is why ownership has been an important view for most cultures. Owning an object, or in the past another person, conferred responsibility, and exclusivity in order to maintain said responsibility.
Ideas do not share this property, in so much that entropy can only effect the artifacts that are used to contain such ideas: books, CDs, human memory, etc. We do attach ownership to ideas, also as a form of conferring responsibility. A call for, or the enticement to murder, carries with it a form of responsibility as a form of causality. Yet the ability to cause direct damage to an idea is impossible, because it does not exist in such a form. Therefore it's value, as far as it's condition is concerned, cannot be diminished.
Perceived value of an idea is indeed mutable, and subjective. In fact many of the arguments for and against copyright seem to fall into this category. Creation of useful ideas, also subjective, is beneficial to the reputation of the creator. Reputations have also been an important part of civilization, in so much as measure of trustworthiness. This is the main reason plagiarism is looked down upon, as it is the acquiring of undue trust though duplicitous means.
I don't believe anyone its arguing for the legalization of plagiarism, hopefully. The argument comes done to one of belief in undue rewards. Copyright and patents are a monetary reward for the creation of usefully ideas, beyond the original reward of reputation. To maintain such a reward system, the curtailment of actions is placed upon the entire civilization. These actions may or may not effect the actual monetary reward, very little actual research is done, or ever used if it is done.
So this breaks down to two arguments:
1 – Now reward beyond that of reputation should be conferred to the creator
2 – The creator deserves monetary rewards, and a system must be in place to enforce this
Most arguments are of the second type usually ignore the first type. In fact many proponents of the second type will denigrate those who believe the in first. Man, that was a long way to get here. I fit in the first category by the way, and you seem to be in the second. I believe most arguments of the second type fit this quote.
“We've already agreed that you're a whore, now we're just negotiating price.”
Price, being the freedoms you wish to curtail so someone can make more money, whore.
