Linked by David Adams on Tue 26th Oct 2004 16:30 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



The 'abnormal' situation isn't the copying of information but rather the looking at it as a good. You cannot prevent th copying of information (wether it's music, a painting or source code) because of the very nature of the thing.
Every time I look at a picture or hear a piece of music it gets copied into my internal memory. People intuitively understand the nature of information which is why it doesn't 'feel' wrong to copy a song, the rationalization is treating it as a good which imposes sociatal values on something where for reasons of practicality it doesn't apply.
Note that this dichotomy is relatively new and only really came to the fore in the latter half of the last century. The classic view of information (that it is to be distributed freely) survives in institutions like libraries where you can freely access cds, books and yes even software.