Comment Egads (Score 1) 501
"Information doesn't want to be free - people want it to be." I thought those exact words earlier today, I kid ye not.
One of the funny things I've always thought about the line "information wants to be free" is it's reference. Information does want to be free ( that's not supposed to be taken literally) I can go down to the library and read up on lots of information, all for free. However, I cannot go to the library and take all the software and music I want and keep for myself. For those I would have to go to the mall and shell out money. In this sense they are not information, they are products and as products they are only free if their creator wants them to be. They may still be classified as information on some levels, but they are still products which we buy and sell.
If we can look at them as merely products perhaps we can see a little more clearly. If you take a product that is for sale without paying for it and without having permission to do so, it is stealing by definition. This is where all the debate comes from: the clash between self-interest/capitalism, law, and morality.
Is the system broken? Is the RIAA an evil organization? Do we only care about ourselves? Are copyright laws outdated?
Personaly, I'm not really sure. For myself it's come down to a lengthy comtemplation of my own principles and the market, but I still haven't come up with an acceptable decision. I forget where I was trying to go with this, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm an idiot; it's food for thought atleast.
-Andrew Wright, is tired and wants to go to bed
One of the funny things I've always thought about the line "information wants to be free" is it's reference. Information does want to be free ( that's not supposed to be taken literally) I can go down to the library and read up on lots of information, all for free. However, I cannot go to the library and take all the software and music I want and keep for myself. For those I would have to go to the mall and shell out money. In this sense they are not information, they are products and as products they are only free if their creator wants them to be. They may still be classified as information on some levels, but they are still products which we buy and sell.
If we can look at them as merely products perhaps we can see a little more clearly. If you take a product that is for sale without paying for it and without having permission to do so, it is stealing by definition. This is where all the debate comes from: the clash between self-interest/capitalism, law, and morality.
Is the system broken? Is the RIAA an evil organization? Do we only care about ourselves? Are copyright laws outdated?
Personaly, I'm not really sure. For myself it's come down to a lengthy comtemplation of my own principles and the market, but I still haven't come up with an acceptable decision. I forget where I was trying to go with this, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm an idiot; it's food for thought atleast.
-Andrew Wright, is tired and wants to go to bed
