.Ant
New member
I actually think individual property ownership is real. Both material AND intellectua
I actually think individual property ownership is real. Both material AND intellectua
This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.
Although Paul was talking about God's law - hence what I am saying is that God defines our morality, because his law overrides the law of any government.
With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing".
Sorry, I should've made that clearer. My bad.
What I really believe is that all men are under God's law. What is your basis?
I actually think individual property ownership is real. Both material AND intellectua
I was using them interchangeably (sorry to be confusing and inaccurate).Originally posted by Yorzhik
If you think copyrights are expressed agreements, then how on earth do you define an implied agreement?
When you click "I Agree" on the licence agreement when installing a software program, you are giving your consent.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No its not. It's implied, because the law does not require that I sign anything or give any expression of my consent. Laws cannot change the definitions of expressed and implied, no matter how they are worded.Originally posted by .Ant
Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights).
This part of the discussion is a bit off-track, because we're talking about property, not contracts. You don't have to sign anything to prevent you from stealing property, nor intellectual property under current law.
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.
You're right, it doesn't. Taking it to it's conclusion, the Bible speaks about God's law:Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.
Originally written by Paul (Romans 4:15)
And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Although Paul was talking about God's law - hence what I am saying is that God defines our morality, because his law overrides the law of any government.
With regards to copyright law, I do not think it goes against any biblical principle. In fact, if anything, I think the bible upholds my view that "music piracy is stealing".
We're arguing in circles now. Your argument does not help to distinguish WHY intellectual property is invalid. (I could use the same argument against material property: "The act of creating a material good is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.")Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Because as soon as you create that art, it no longer belongs to you. You may own the canvas that its on, but the act of expressing art is the act of placing it in the public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it are stealing, in the same sense that communists are stealing when they take something that naturally belongs to you, property, and distribute it as if it were common.
Individual property ownership is not a concept in all cultures.Originally posted by Eli_Cash (my emphasis)
In a "non ownership" culture someone still owns property. Its just that all the property is owned by one inividual or group who controls how it may be used.
Sorry, I should've made that clearer. My bad.
You're right. I was using the cultural relativism argument as an argument from a worldly perspective, and also to show that intellectual property is just as valid as material property.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No it shows that some cultures are based on lies, like the idea that things are not owned. Somebody owns everything, because somebody dictates how every piece of property is used. Some cultures don't like to admit this, but there is no way around it. But I'm glad you admit that you are a cultural relativist. Now take it to the next step and admit it was alright to be a Nazi in WW2 era germany.
What I really believe is that all men are under God's law. What is your basis?
Well, thereoretically, there could be a total democracy, where everyone who wants to votes on the issue...Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Somebody always has a final say-so about any physical peice of property. This is a natural fact. You cannot get around it.