Downloading a tune is a far cry from grabbing money that you know (sic) came from a bank robbery. This analogy of yours is shrill. Downloading a tune is not the same as looking for money floating around on the street when you have no way of knowing who lost the money
Upon further reflection, I agree that this analogy was not the best for this situation. There are better ones, I’ll see what I can come up with.
If you don’t think student’s desire to be part of their cultural milieu is almost desperate and thus like breathing, you are not very observant.
A strong (desperate) desire does not define an absolute need (like breathing). Have I interepreted your reasoning correctly, that a desperate desire grants us the right to satisfy it?
Using someone else’s Internet service is more like the change we found in the lounge chairs in the library because we did not first ask for permission.
Not too bad of an anology, although bit more complex than it should to be becuase in reality an ownership transfer has effectively taken place before the change is found. But, I’ll go with it.
Who owns the change in the library lounge chairs? Is it finders, keepers? Part of the world may teach us that. Buy, I know that even the civil law would respect the rights of ownership of the library (public or private), i.e. in the case of abandonment of property on their premises, they have the right to assert ownership. Is taking the money a serious sin? Probably not, depending on the amount. Would taking any of it before obtaining the permission of the owner be a sin, if even a small one? Yes.
There is no way credit card numbers (or stolen money) would be considered part of the culture. Remember, our government would determine what counts as culture and what doesn’t. I am merely advocating a careful change in our laws to allow greater access to culture for personal growth.
My credit card number analogy was a bad one, sorry about that, scratch it.
JP II would smile if he knew I photocopied his book and read it.
Pope John Paul II was a firm believer (and pontificator) of individual rights to ownership. Early in his papacy, he taught about the errors of socialism, which as its basic premise, teaches that individual rights may be subjected to the “good of society”. This principal is much different than the one on which this country was founded, in that God grants rights to individuals, and that these are unalienable.
In practice, socialistm means that men/women are not allowed to own what they produce, goods and information. The socialistic states have done what you propose; they have usurped the rights of individuals to own property or information. In your case, you only suggest that the information that people create can be usurped for the benefit of others, but your reasoning is parallel; that the fruits of one’s labors somehow automatically become the property of all.
Whereas our state (U.S.) and socialist states are consistent in their treatment of ownership rights with regard to physical goods and information, you make a distinction, saying that one may own the physical goods they produce, but not the information they produce. I’d be curious to understand the reasoning. You have stated that it is society’s ‘desire’ for this information (or culture as you put it) that justifies denying ownership to the creator. But, I suggest that this is dangerous reasoning, as strong desires can never in themselves justify our actions. Most evils are committed because of strong desires, but the fact that the actions are evil does not change due to the desire being strong.
Dan
That was not my intention. Please accept my apology.