Originally Posted by Kenneth Cade
Does that mean that I (SINCE I HAVE ADMITTEDLY DON"T have a hard and fast position) I try to obey the law, but would like to UNDERTAND the morality issues better! SHOULD stop talking about it, Since you have done so much research I don't understand why it is NOT worth your time to enlighten a true seeker such as myself with your knowledge. I still say my questioons are valid otherwise "SERIOUS THINKERS" would not have considered them.

anyway thanks for your time, and I am sorry that your efforts in enlightening me seem so fruitless to you.

I genuinely DON'T see HOW the argument is CLEARLY ONESIDED, but I would like to. that would make things easier!


Kenneth, please don't misunderstand me, I don't say your questions aren't valid.

My position is, simply, that the concept of ownership is, TO ME, not odd at all. It makes sense, in my opinion, that folks who create something unique, whether it is something tangible, the design of something tangible, or whether it is a story or an idea or a musical composition, should have an exclusive right to the copying, distribution, and publication of such creations. To you, I believe, it is odd that someone should be able to claim ownership of an idea, and as that is how you find the concept, you are unclear as the morality of such.

Well, to start with, I applaud you for obeying the law, even if you find the premise odd. The truth is, I really don't know what else to say. Except to simply ask this question:

Do you think it is immoral for people to insist on ownership of their intellectual property?

You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music