tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post3674651590899326672..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: Digital Economy Act: Built on SandGlyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-44170823960357599992010-04-15T11:13:25.431+00:002010-04-15T11:13:25.431+00:00It remains important to bear in mind that the natu...It remains important to bear in mind that the natural right is to privacy. <br /><br />Theft is a violation of that right (from which the notion of property derives), through the removal of material possessions.<br /><br />Problems arise when people infer a natural right as limited to a specific violation. It is just as much a violation of privacy to burgle an individual's house and make and remove a copy their diary as it is to remove their diary. The fact that a burglar may be productive in their act is irrelevant.<br /><br />So people do have a natural exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession, against unauthorised copying as much as removal. This is a natural monopoly that lasts a lifetime.<br /><br />It is only the unnatural monopoly of copyright, that 18th century privilege, that inveigles itself as a laudable extension.<br /><br />So, copying is not theft, but that doesn't mean that in some cases unauthorised copying can't violate privacy as much as unauthorised material removal. A thief generally seeks to gain. The spiteful burglar seeking to deprive is a rarity.<br /><br />In other words, to elevate copying into an intrinsically good act because it is apparently productive, is to lose sight of what makes theft unethical.Crosbie Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06554471152790988479noreply@blogger.com