>>Yes but things that are wrong because they are against the >>law, not because of some deep moral principle, can be >>changed through the political process. That's why it's important >>not to call it theft or piracy when it's not theft or piracy. >> > > I don't understand, how is stealing intellectual property > What intellectual property? There is no such thing. There are copyrights, patents and trademarks - that's all.
> not theft? I >don't know of any time God has advocated rebelling against any reasonable >law. Thus, if God doesn't advocate it, isn't it a deep moral priciple? > I am not an American, but let's look at the US constitution. The founders, somewhat reluctantly allowed for copyrights and patents for a reasonable time to promote innovation. That reasonable time was 14 years. Now copyrights are extended to longer than a person's lifetime and retrospectively. That does not promote inovation, and it is a theft from the public domain. You've got to remember that no idea, song, story came about in isolation. Everything was built on top of the shoulders of previous giants. When you copyright something and take exclusive rights to it, you are taking from these previous giants without giving back. Copyrights and patents were supposed to run out quickly as a way to give back and also as a platform of material for the next innovators. As it happens there is an interesting article today about this very subject..... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/21/155221&mode=thread
