Re: Ancient wares and present values

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

>Oh, I won't say they can't be helpful.  Where us vogons start
>objecting is when they start helping folks out with software
>or information that doesn't belong to them.

I knew that if I waited long enough, I would be vindicated. You see, as
stupid and 19th century as Quantum Cat is, at least the concept of
"copyright" is somewhat internally consistent and defendable. We might split
hairs with him for years, and never find logic quite elegant enough to
finally cut through all the garbage he is spouting.

But since when can someone "own" information? Software, yes. Visual art or
music, yes. But pure info? I'm sure the lawyers for Encyclopedia Britannica
would descend upon pirate reference book publishers with a ferociousness
only seen chummed waters a couple miles off the coast. But even in the
depths of obscene lawyerdom, I suspect we'd never see a single subhuman
attorney arguing that they own the information.... only the presentation and
format they provide it in. Information is freedom, it is power, it is truth.
Apparently QC belongs to the group that thinks that information belongs to
only those who pay the requisite royalties, licenses and fees. And while you
can rant all you want about everybody having a fair opportunity to pay these
ransoms, I believe even those on the other side of the issue will see how
transparent these excuses are.