More and further...

Adam Gessaman has some more to say on the subject of piracy, in response to Aaron's opinions on the nature of intellectual property. Some of Aaron's statements from the debate here as well make it into the rebuttal.

Essentially, Adam manages to express the reasons that really underly my belief that Nick, amongst others, have a right to the profits from their software. Especially interesting is the quote:

bq. Beyond that lies something Locke could not have considered -- the fact that in scale Nick's property is infinite. However, through the concept of property as the fruit of one's labors, it is still his. An infinite number of copies have the potential to be created, and thus he has the potential to be reimbursed for creating an 'overplus' of such magnitude. However, the property is FeedDemon, not any individual copy. By stealing one copy of FeedDemon, you have infringed (however infinitesimally) upon that property and in doing so have deprived him of the ability to be reimbursed for the use of same.

Anyway, check this out - some great reading, very informative, and useful in debunking specious arguments about the lack of rights of IP creators.

Comments !