Sin Synopsis · Monday August 09, 2010 by Crosbie Fitch
Intellectual and material work are both naturally property since they both exist physically.
Copyright and patent are privileges, monopolies that suspend people’s liberty to produce copies of their own property or utilise/reproduce certain registered designs. They have nothing to do with making writing or designs the property of their authors or inventors – nature does this, as it imbues those creators with the exclusive right to their work. We have a natural right to exclude others from our private possessions, to prevent others copying or using them, but that doesn’t mean we can control others in the use of their own property, which includes what we sell or give to them.
What people subconsciously infer from copyright and patent is that patterns can be property, that wherever they proliferate/manifest in the universe those patterns must be regarded as the property of those who can claim to have originated or first registered them. That’s the spooky and quite unnatural delusion that so many people have been indoctrinated with – because it is lucrative to exploit such people’s consequent willingness to surrender their liberty (to utilise ‘spookily pervasive’ patterns that someone else has claimed as theirs).
There can be no justification for granting instruments of injustice (aka privileges). That a grant of such a monopoly in literary works might aid the public’s learning is a pretext, not a justification. Copyright was enacted to aid the state via a rewarded and beholden press. This is the same unethical motive behind ACTA, to control the distribution of information to and by the public, for the wealth and power that follows – not for the public benefit. Such corrupt legislation as copyright and patent is made for the benefit of those few in a position to benefit from it today and tomorrow, not for the benefit of generations hence – who having lost their liberty instead reap the cultural and technological deficit.
The wilful infringement of what is typically an immortal corporation’s privilege is today regarded as a venial sin, like sex before marriage. Everyone pays lip service to the censure that those who engage in it are reprobates, but behind closed doors everyone indulges in it – with a wink and nod across the pews after. But who can pretend righteous satisfaction to see delinquent youngsters sued for millions by legally created entities as a lesson to their peers? Who can then still refuse to recognise the definition of copyright as an instrument of injustice? Until people snap out of such complicity, and recognise that cultural intercourse is not only natural and within each individual’s liberty, but is fundamentally vital to mankind’s health and progress, then we work to the beat of the Morlocks’ drum.
I do have a question, plagiarism is a venial sin as well. A content was being copy to the legal author but doing rephrasing those words or the content is not a venial sin in the world of “writer” Right?
Sin synopsis – a very well specified that tackles the pattern and form of which property must not be copied.
Comment #000443 at
2010-09-02 03:00
by
Plagiarism is a deceit, the presentation of another’s work as one’s own. So yes, it is morally wrong, unethical. Rephrasing fails to dilute the plagiarism (though it helps hide it).
The wrong is not in making a copy, but in pretending authorship to words and intellectual work not one’s own. Either quote (and copy as much as you wish), ideally with attribution, or comprehend and re-explain, still ideally with attribution of your sources.
There’s nothing deceitful or wrong in paying someone to write an essay per se, e.g. in order to produce and sell copies of it (as long as its authorship is not misrepresented).
However, to pay someone to write an essay, to then claim authorship of that writer’s intellectual work is inherently deceitful, a fraud. Note that the deceit is not committed by the writer of the essay, nor the person who sells that service, but whoever misrepresents its authorship, e.g. a less than scrupulous student with more money than talent who needs to produce an original essay.
Comment #000444 at
2010-09-04 11:43
by
Crosbie Fitch
Copyrights and NDA’s are all very good until you cross horns with the Big boys..
In a world where bigger unfortunately means deeper pockets and more expensive lawyers only the burden of proof will suffice. When creating something that you wish to copyright ensure you keep sufficient evidence so that you can prove without doubt that you created it before someone copies it…
Comment #000445 at
2010-09-08 06:53
by
Alan, legal instruments as defence or weapons against ‘the big boys’ are generally worthless to the little guy – unless the little guy expects to be able to find a big boy who’ll be interested in exploiting the little guy’s weapon (in which case, as you suggest, registration, meticulous records and evidence are useful).
Otherwise, rather than hoping to exploit anachronistic privileges (copyright) and unethical pretentions to contract away inalienable liberty (NDAs), little guys are always far better off exploiting word of mouth publicity and promotion through copyleft, and relying upon trust and discretion concerning matters of confidence.
Who wins in court (or out of it) is invariably determined by who has the larger litigation budget. Only in cases where the budgets are of the same magnitude is judicial arbitration likely to be the deciding factor (and worth risking).
Comment #000446 at
2010-09-08 09:58
by
Crosbie Fitch
Intellectual and material work are both naturally property since they both exist physically.
Copyright and patent are privileges, monopolies that suspend people’s liberty to produce copies of their own property or utilise/reproduce certain registered designs. They have nothing to do with making writing or designs the property of their authors or inventors – nature does this, as it imbues those creators with the exclusive right to their work. We have a natural right to exclude others from our private possessions, to prevent others copying or using them, but that doesn’t mean we can control others in the use of their own property, which includes what we sell or give to them.
What people subconsciously infer from copyright and patent is that patterns can be property, that wherever they proliferate/manifest in the universe those patterns must be regarded as the property of those who can claim to have originated or first registered them. That’s the spooky and quite unnatural delusion that so many people have been indoctrinated with – because it is lucrative to exploit such people’s consequent willingness to surrender their liberty (to utilise ‘spookily pervasive’ patterns that someone else has claimed as theirs).
There can be no justification for granting instruments of injustice (aka privileges). That a grant of such a monopoly in literary works might aid the public’s learning is a pretext, not a justification. Copyright was enacted to aid the state via a rewarded and beholden press. This is the same unethical motive behind ACTA, to control the distribution of information to and by the public, for the wealth and power that follows – not for the public benefit. Such corrupt legislation as copyright and patent is made for the benefit of those few in a position to benefit from it today and tomorrow, not for the benefit of generations hence – who having lost their liberty instead reap the cultural and technological deficit.
The wilful infringement of what is typically an immortal corporation’s privilege is today regarded as a venial sin, like sex before marriage. Everyone pays lip service to the censure that those who engage in it are reprobates, but behind closed doors everyone indulges in it – with a wink and nod across the pews after. But who can pretend righteous satisfaction to see delinquent youngsters sued for millions by legally created entities as a lesson to their peers? Who can then still refuse to recognise the definition of copyright as an instrument of injustice? Until people snap out of such complicity, and recognise that cultural intercourse is not only natural and within each individual’s liberty, but is fundamentally vital to mankind’s health and progress, then we work to the beat of the Morlocks’ drum.