Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5099144" data-attributes="member: 2732">The key thing is, virtually all laws are constructed by man and are &quot;artificial&quot;.&nbsp; Even if you accept the terms of &quot;Natural Law&quot; (as it, rights designated by either objective nature, divine will, some objective moral principle etc.), that's not really something that could be proved, but rather argued philisophically.&nbsp; Therefore, things like the US Bill of Rights can even be deconstructed as artificial privilages setup by man, not to mention property.That's why I reject arguments designed to sidetrack things, such as &quot;copying is not theft&quot;.&nbsp; While that may be technically correct under the legal code, it ignores the whole purpose of the laws setup to handle that and is a distraction.&nbsp; Like permerton says, there are lots of laws that are on the books, and law doesn't just deal with the physical.&nbsp; There's a reason why such &quot;IP&quot; laws were setup, as well as the concept of Intellectual Property being recognized by governments.I think the key reason why I argue in favor of IP a lot here is I think too many people want to &quot;throw out the whole system&quot;, because of some abuses by certain people.&nbsp; That seems to be a common thought nowadays, and I don't think the other side is seen fairly of late.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 5099144, member: 2732"] The key thing is, virtually all laws are constructed by man and are "artificial". Even if you accept the terms of "Natural Law" (as it, rights designated by either objective nature, divine will, some objective moral principle etc.), that's not really something that could be proved, but rather argued philisophically. Therefore, things like the US Bill of Rights can even be deconstructed as artificial privilages setup by man, not to mention property. That's why I reject arguments designed to sidetrack things, such as "copying is not theft". While that may be technically correct under the legal code, it ignores the whole purpose of the laws setup to handle that and is a distraction. Like permerton says, there are lots of laws that are on the books, and law doesn't just deal with the physical. There's a reason why such "IP" laws were setup, as well as the concept of Intellectual Property being recognized by governments. I think the key reason why I argue in favor of IP a lot here is I think too many people want to "throw out the whole system", because of some abuses by certain people. That seems to be a common thought nowadays, and I don't think the other side is seen fairly of late. [/QUOTE]

Verification