JeanneAnne wrote:
PeterCanessa Oh wrote:
I'd defend your position but you'd say I was being patronising so I'll just provide an example to support it:
The major difference between copying code, music, etc. and taking a bicycle, computer or other tangible item is exactly that - it is copied, not taken. Therefore no-one is denied its use. From a utilitarian view "the greatest good" is increased by copying and thus maximising the availability of such intangibles.
(I'll leave it to you to explain how the greater good is served by having starving programmers and composers hanging around making the place look untidy)
I was thinkinga bout this the other day .. Was thinking that making it so an item in SL couldnt be copied & shared was like an animal breeder only selling neutered animals
If i acquire something in SL why shouldnt i be able to copy it & share it w/ others for free? Only because the person who made it is selfish & wants to be the only one who can distribute copies of it for profit .. thats why !! Code is readily replicable .. so why artificially make it difficult to replicate ?!? Only due to the greed of the scripter .. apparently .. This is just 1 example of capitalist pathology.. there are many more: planned obsolescence, non-interchangeability of components, brand redundancy, the engineering of faux need ........ & on & on .. Yet ppl defend this craziness as if their well-being depended on it !! Guess they've been indoctrinated to believe it does
Jeanne
Please feel free to put your thoughts on a pay per view basis. I for one wont object.