OT: Citing

Eduardo Robles Elvira edulix at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 15:33:01 UTC 2008


El Miércoles 30 Abril 2008, Derek Broughton escribió:
> Unfortunately Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Berne convention.  Don't be
> stupid.
> <plonk>

Berne Convention doesn't stablish what is theft and what is not. Neither it 
stablishes what is conceptualy wrong. And please oh please don't insult other 
people when you don't share their opinions. That's not a valid argument in 
any dicussion, and it's a long stablished fallacy:  argumentum ad hominem 
[1].

El Miércoles 30 Abril 2008, Ignazio Palmisano escribió:
> Good point but this is not about the broadcasting of copyrighted
> material being right or wrong in absolute terms, this is about it being
> legal. My guess about copyright laws is that they enable the original
> source to say: thou shalt not broadcast this. Whether this is right or
> wrong, it's still their legal right to say so. A wrong law does not make
> legal to break it, a wrong law is reason for those who think it wrong to
> stand and make their opinion heard, voting for the law to be changed or
> otherwise acting, but breaking the law is breaking the law anyway. At
> least this is my reading of how Thoreau describes civil disobedience;
> that does not involve impunity if the law is broken.

I read "theft" and I find that term to be wrong. And Derek was indeed talking 
about right or wrong. He might or might not differentiate right-wrong and 
legal-illegal in that email, but I do. Go back to my first email and see what 
I quoted from him:
El Miércoles 30 Abril 2008, Derek Broughton escribió:
> Perhaps not, but I find it distressing - and blame OSS for part of it -
> that people consider it perfectly alright to steal somebody else's
> intellectual property without a second thought.  What you did is theft.
>  Citing it doesn't make it right.  Unfortunately, we're all so used to
> freely sharing software and documentation - legally - that many people
> can't differentiate between what they can copy and what they can't.


So yes, he was explaining what he found distressing, and that's why I point 
that in the right-wrong plane (and NOT in the legal- ilegal plane), using the 
word "theft" (or "steal" or anything like that) is wrong - it doesn't make 
sense. It's actually using the terminology created by RIAA & company, which 
of course ends up making you think like them, unsurprisingly. It's a trap.

El Miércoles 30 Abril 2008, Michael Leone escribió:
> Here's the concept that you're missing ..
>
> Doesn't matter what Thomas Jefferson thinks. Doesn't matter what
> *anyone* thinks. It can still be illegal.

Here is the concept you are missing... I haven't said wether it was illegal or 
not. I was not talking about that and it doesn't matter to me, because saying 
theft is still conceptually wrong. Here in Spain and in the USA too, no 
matter which law is applied. I have only said that "theft" is not an 
appropiate word in this case for the argument Derek was creating, as I have 
explained above.

Greetings,
      Eduardo Robles Elvira.
--
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

-- 
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-users/attachments/20080430/b11f590f/attachment.sig>


More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list