tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631405922607116203.post2119616766086967046..comments2024-03-27T09:23:57.618+00:00Comments on JIPLP: The November issue: IP and the moral mazeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631405922607116203.post-8430870270137511572011-03-02T04:58:16.129+00:002011-03-02T04:58:16.129+00:00"In other words, if enough people want to do ..."In other words, if enough people want to do it, the law should not stop them."<br />"It is not difficult to turn this form of reasoning, applied here to IP, so as to provide a corresponding justification for turning a blind eye to motoring speed limits, parking restrictions, fare-dodging, and tax-cheating, among other things. This is because it is a form of reasoning from which the consideration of any moral principles has been increasingly excluded."<br /><br />This argument could also be applied to the creation of democratic rule, which back in the day was regarded as unlawful. It's always been the problem with morality; Morality is a personal creation, and it will depend on the person you are, king or peon, creator or innovator.<br /><br />Check out my stuff at http://theideacollective.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631405922607116203.post-64960003892443122112010-10-13T21:51:24.145+01:002010-10-13T21:51:24.145+01:00There are no 'moral arguments that support IP ...There are no 'moral arguments that support IP rights'. The very phrase itself reveals corruption in the assumption of copyright and patent as rights rather than privileges:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man<br /><br />Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:<br /><br /><em>It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice.</em>Crosbie Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06554471152790988479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631405922607116203.post-72963768279526069932010-10-13T20:49:00.381+01:002010-10-13T20:49:00.381+01:00Sorry for posting anonymous, this seems to be the ...Sorry for posting anonymous, this seems to be the only way Blogspot accepts my comment.. Dirk Franke by the way and as I have included a link, you can deduce the rest by yourself.<br /><br />In my own blog I have written some kind of answer: <a rel="nofollow">If you can't find a way out of the maze, break some walls</a>. This is too long to post it here, but I will of course give the link and write at least an outline:<br /><br />- the Statute of Anne was actually a method not only to empower authors but also to curb the rights of the greedy few who profited from the old system.<br /><br />- in its days of glory, IP was able to combine the moral claims of authors rights, the market and the spread of information.<br /><br />- in the last decades IP has lost sight of the man who creates and the power balance has shifted to the man who publishes.<br /><br />- in all accounts the moral justification of IP has indeed been shattered.<br /><br />- IP is alive but it needs a reorientation like the Statute of Anne was 300 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com