Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

>> You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense.

But the whole notion of 'right to determine how IP is distributed' is an artificial, and very recent creation. Why should people have such rights? Why do we need them when we functioned fine as a society for so many millennia without them.

View on HN

Sure. And I'm in no way arguing for that notion. What I am arguing against is confusing the theft of a copy or object with interfering with said right, legitimate or not. My point is that you have not deprived the owner of the copy/object/medium of anything, but that is a straw man. The real question is whether these rights, which are in fact being violated by the reproduction, are legitimate. I agree with you that they are generally not, from my own moral perspective at least.

The whole notion of 'freedom' is an artificial and very recent creation. We functioned fine as a society for so many millennia with slavery.

Well trolled.

In actual fact, there's more 'slaves' today than at any time in history.

For one, legalized slavery in the US - prisoners are forced to manufacture household appliances, number plates, military uniforms etc. If they refuse, they get solitary confinement and other punishments.

Perhaps the concept of 'freedom' is a good one, but it doesn't map in any way to the real world.

It's not like they created the concept of 'freedom' and then slavery ended.

The means of mass reproduction (e.g. the printing press) have not existed for nearly so long as you seem to think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com