Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: lotus chairman makes 26 million
Keywords: copy protection piracy
Message-ID: <230@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 28 May 88 01:10:35 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <18963@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 20

In article <18963@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes:
> >Our morality says that taking something from someone, INCLUDING IDEAS,
> >is a form of theft unless compensation is provided.
>   Morality == religion -> breeds all kinds of myopic fanatics. Moral
> justification is only applicable to those who belong to your particular
> sect, and should be confined to discussions between its members.
>   Besides this statement is obviously wrong :-)

Ah...  it is not possible to abstract legal rights from their
moral foundation.  Eventually, in order to justify property
rights of any kind you must do so by reference to some morality.

While one CAN look at property rights from the aspect of how one
group forced others to respect their property rights, this
totally ignores WHY it is that they considered those property
rights as important.  And it ignores the causes for why we have
come to accept the idea of property rights.

Property rights, however defined, must rest on the idea of
something of value to someone.  And right there you have run into
a question of morality.