Conversation
Notices
-
back to basics here. @lxoliva: Given that copyright is not the proper law for handling what rms says is his rationale f…
- laurelrusswurm likes this.
-
@lxoliva because, of course, the only reason you should give up a freedom is when what you gain from giving it up is gr…
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@tekk too many ideas in a single post. let me break that up in multiple responses
-
@tekk I believe ND is not the best tool to avoid misrepresentation, and I told him so myself
-
@tekk I don't think it is unethical for an author to retain control over his expressions of opinion, not giving opponents a free ride
-
I dunno, it seems like using a screwdriver as a hammer. Even if it works well it's still the wrong tool for the job. Ar…
-
@tekk finally, I'm not sure taking a ride on others' works is a demandable freedom (as in, one that it would be unethical to deny)
-
@tekk I've seen proof that, for certain kinds of works (e.g. sw), user autonomy requires curtailing authors' control over works
-
@tekk but I'm not convinced that (nor have I seen arguments that purport to) show the same rationale applies to other kinds of works
-
@lxoliva Free ride: "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)." http://www.ur1.ca/b79l
-
@tekk therefore, I remain unconvinced that it's unethical to deny permission for derivatives, although the right to derive is beneficial
-
from this it seems like you're of the opinion that copyright is a natural right, is that correct?
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@tekk I don't know of .br laws in this regard. I'm just relaying RMS's rationale as I recall it from my convo with him about this
-
@laurelrusswurm exactly. and this one is justified for software. who showed the rationale applies to other kinds of works?
-
@tekk nope, copyright is an unfair and useless privilege harmful to society. which doesn't mean it can't ever be put to good use.
-
@tekk see, the problem with this conversation seems to be that people regard me as opposed to cultural freedom, when I'm not
-
@tekk I'm rather trying (and having a hard time) establishing as solid a philosophical foundation for cultural freedom as sw freedom's
-
@lxoliva That is what you are arguing.
-
@tekk but instead of getting help to figure out how the rationale applies, or come up with another rationale, I'm being chastised for...
-
@tekk not accepting blindly the (AFAICT) faith that 4 freedoms must apply equally to all kinds of copyright-covered works
-
@lxoliva Sorry, what possible justification is for this? If the justification doesn't apply to culture, there's no ground to apply it to sw
-
@lxoliva The solid foundation is natural law viz natural rights - cultural liberty.
-
@lxoliva But you have yet to demonstrate how the 4 freedoms can possibly be valid for sw if they aren't applicable to culture
-
@laurelrusswurm good day and I hope that 2012 has treated you well, happy new year BTW :)
-
@crosbie then why stop at the same 4 freedoms? it seems to me that, from that foundation, we could get far more!
-
@kevie Happy New Year to you too! I survived 2011, that's always good :) Hope your family had a nice holiday.
-
@laurelrusswurm as in, if a recipe for apple pie doesn't apply equally to all kinds of fruits, then it can't possibly be correct?
-
@laurelrusswurm still on holiday (at my parents) we're heading home on Thursday :) I'm glad to see the back of 2011
-
@laurelrusswurm rms did just that, showing that the 4 freedoms are essential for sw users to keep their autonomy
-
@lxoliva The point is that @rms arguments don't hold up if the same arguments don't apply to culture. It's that simple. !copyright
Charles Roth likes this. -
@kevie I'll bet the wee guy has hair not fuzz these days. Is he old enough to hide when he sees a camera yet?
-
@lxoliva If you buy a recipe for apple pie, that's what it is *for*... using it for something else is mere interpretation. !freeculture
-
@laurelrusswurm he's way too vain to hide, he now smiles at the camera (he's like his daddy, always look your best in a photo) ;)
-
@laurelrusswurm looks like you start from a false premise; his arguments are made specifically to software
-
@kevie Oh, it will happen, maybe not for long, but I'm betting it does :D Our kids are much more photographed than we were.
-
@laurelrusswurm and it's precisely because nobody has extended them to all forms of culture that we're having this conversation
-
@laurelrusswurm ethical considerations about one's control over one's own computations cannot be trivially extended to all forms of culture
-
@laurelrusswurm I remember disappearing when the old man used to stick the camcorder in my face, we all use evasive tactics at times ;)
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@kevie doesn't the Suarez greeting to the Stoke fans work? #middlefinger
-
once gain and please respond to this point. you are starting from the false premise that freedom is not the proper default.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@lxoliva They can't be extended because they have no sound foundation: http://identi.ca/url/49172471
-
@lxoliva pardon me? The only law anywhere in the world that absolutely supports free culture or free software is Natural Law
Charles Roth likes this. -
@lxoliva The laws passed by governments unanimously deprive us of free culture AND free software; only workarounds for either are licenses.
Muel Kiel likes this. -
Sorry, @lxoliva but culture is anything but trivial.
-
@thistleweb scratches face in a Barry Ferguson mode *two fingured salute*
-
Yes, that is the crux, @zotz,
-
@zotz no, I'm not starting from there. determining what is freedom, what is power, what's right/ok/wrong comes first
-
@crosbie there's a flaw in the argument presented there: software engineers don't have the liberty to change sw unless they get source code
-
@crosbie I'd say that's why it's unethical to deny source code: it'd tramples a natural right
-
@lxoliva Try this for an introduction as to where/when it all went wrong: http://identi.ca/url/46741116
-
@laurelrusswurm you mean, the way he uses free speech to get the proper meaning of free, as in freedom?
-
@lxoliva The flaw is in one of @RMS's 'freedoms'. See http://identi.ca/url/48415582
-
@laurelrusswurm also, the free software definition is not even close to the beginning of the story; it's the conclusion of a long process
-
@laurelrusswurm I suggest we cool off because we seem to be talking past each other. I didn't say culture is trivial
-
@laurelrusswurm it was the extension of the 4 essential sw freedoms to other forms of culture that was trivial; too trivial IMHO
-
@lxoliva No natural right to sequester another's source/recipe simply because you possess a derivative. Closed source is epiphenomenon.
-
@crosbie thanks, I read that before, and it does nothing to justify the trivial application of the 4 essential sw freedoms to other works
-
@laurelrusswurm sorry, no, can't start from "I name this a freedom, so it must be [a] right". determining the right freedoms comes 1st.
-
@laurelrusswurm for the nth time: because software inescapably dictates your computer's behavior; art doesn't dictate your brain's behavior
-
@laurelrusswurm because source code lets you control your own computer; modifying art is about expressing to others
-
@crosbie GPL and copyleft are not freedoms. they're copyright-based tools to respect and defend freedom
-
@crosbie the discussion about copyright-related isseus as if they were teh essence of sw freedom misses the forest for the trees
-
@lxoliva @RMS's '4 freedoms' address the blight caused by #copyright. They're not an ethical foundation. Natural rights apply to ALL.
-
@crosbie therefore, no natural right to modify software, the opposite of what you wrote in one of the articles you mentioned here
-
Why do you get to control your computer but I don't get to control my art? That is a "I get to but you don't because I said so" argument.
Muel Kiel likes this. -
@crosbie you got the timeline wrong here. free software movement and 4 freedoms precede Cr&P applied to software; see NDAs
-
Your computer & software were invented and probably manufactured by someone else. Existing law says you have 0 freedom to tinker.
-
@laurelrusswurm just like novels are part of literature, but not everything that applies to novels applies to all forms of literature
-
@lxoliva The 4 freedoms are an idea that is not enshrined in law anywhere in the world.
-
@crosbie again, wrong timeline. essential freedoms stem from ethical considerations
-
@crosbie later, free software copyright licenses disabled enough of copyright for freedoms to be respected WRT the affected work
-
@laurelrusswurm wait, what do you mean by your controlling your art, or others controlling theirs?
-
@laurelrusswurm you're confusing freedom with right here. I may not have the right to, but I believe I have the freedom to
-
@lxoliva Hence ethical considerations must start from nature, not from "The freedom & power I covet and have been denied", thus natural law.
-
@lxoliva copyright law allows creators and manufacturers to impose rules on people that curtail our liberty.
-
@laurelrusswurm both disable/subvert copyright *for the covered works*, it's the best we have so far.
-
@lxoliva All freedoms come first. The right freedoms are what's left when you recognise natural rights. Those freedoms are termed LIBERTY.
-
@kevingranade Yes, I am very much aware that licensing is the best workaround we have at the moment, but they have not weakened !copyright
-
@laurelrusswurm Laurel, please read what I write, not just the bits and pieces out of context that seem easy enough to oppose
-
Luke Slater and Psychedelic Squid like this.
-
That’s… a little sinister.
-
@crosbie now please help me solve this puzzle: don't authors have a natural right to stop anyone from doing anything with their work? ...
-
@crosbie ... considering that, when they complete the work, nobody else has access to it, and they can keep it that way if they choose to
-
@laurelrusswurm success of copyleft demonstrating a viable alternative to proprietary sw licensing, likewise CC with other creative works.
-
@lxoliva You know, I have actually both read AND responded to everything you have said. The reverse is *not* true. #notevenclose
-
@lxoliva Authors have natural right to exclude others from their private domain & the works within, not to control what others do in theirs
-
@lxoliva their natural right extends to the point when they make work public, no further. IMO attribution is a valid, but not natural right.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@x11r5 you tell him
-
@crosbie but can't they require recipients of their works to cede them control through contracts?
-
@laurelrusswurm oh, well. I'm sorry that you feel that way. BTW, what do you mean by your controlling your art, again?
-
@laurelrusswurm "disabled enough of copyright...WRT the affected work", "trivially extended"->"trivial culture", what else did you misread?
-
@kevingranade I lean towards that as well, but I haven't been able to justify that position to my satisfaction :-(
-
@crosbie huh? say in contract between A and B, signed before distribution, B promises not to do X with A's work. is that property?!?
-
@crosbie consider that contract in a jurisdiction without copyright, to avoid any confusion
-
@lxoliva One can make anything a condition, but one cannot surrender one's liberty - even in a promise. A car is property. Speech is liberty
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@crosbie but if A has a natural right/power, and can retain it over B through a contract, was it B's freedom in the 1st place?
-
@crosbie I think we're now getting to the core of the issue at hand
-
@lxoliva Natural rights do not conflict. All are equal. No-one has power over another. Contract exchanges property, not power, nor liberty.
-
@kevingranade Yes, there's no right to attribution, only to truth, and thus against deceit/fraud/misattribution/plagiarism.
-
@crosbie aah, I hadn't thought of lack of attribution as "fraud by omission", that places on more solid ground.
-
@crosbie so, if that author has natural right to stop others from modifying her work, others don't have a natural right to modify it?
-
@lxoliva As pretty an example of misrepresentation as I've ever seen: http://identi.ca/notice/88045477 ⇒ http://identi.ca/notice/88047705
-
Maybe you're not opposed, but it does seem that way.
-
@kevingranade Yes, misattribution can sometimes occur implicitly, through omission and adverse context - due to negligence or intention.
-
@lxoliva The physical boundary of our private domain delimits our right to exclude others from the writings within.
-
@jxself well, wishing for a solid foundation is hardly the same as opposing, but being ganged up is surely not nice
-
@laurelrusswurm I must be very dense, for I still see an unanswered question there, and no misrepresentation
-
@laurelrusswurm I understand pretty well what it means to get my computer to perform the calculations I need done
-
@laurelrusswurm but I don't understand why you need to modify a work of art in order to get your brain to perform some computation you need
-
@laurelrusswurm meaning: the ethical considerations about computations, performed through computers or not, are specific to computations
-
@laurelrusswurm it's not trivial to apply those considerations to other, non-computing forms of culture, if at all
-
@lxoliva Did you even read http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ? I suggest you read @zotz post; I can't argue with someone who doesn't hear
-
@laurelrusswurm there's no immediate mapping from the scope of instructions to perform computations to the vast array of cultural works
-
@laurelrusswurm that's what I wrote meant. now, how did you get from that to "culture is not trivial", that assumes the opposite?
-
@crosbie not wherever! but you start naturally excluded, and author can demand a promise to remain so in order to share her work, so...
-
@crosbie ... how can one claim a natural right to something one can be permanently and legitimately excluded from?
-
@laurelrusswurm I read it several times. same 4 sw freedoms, no similar rationale, which weakens the proposed analogy
-
@lxoliva Author can "demand a promise", but that doesn't create a right, nor can it surrender another's liberty.
-
@lxoliva Perhaps you've misunderstood me somewhere along the way? Sorry if I've been unclear.
-
@crosbie it doesn't create the right to exclude; it was already there before
-
@laurelrusswurm well, if you want to say it's not an analogy, how do you label it? a perfect copy, it isn't; it's trivially adapted
-
@laurelrusswurm just to be fair, do you have any evidence to show that you listened to anything I said?
-
@thistleweb Tvmanukrishnan: @airtel_presence still online? That's gr8. Can you tell him
-
@crosbie that's perfectly possible; it's sometimes hard to find common ground/vocabulary, more so within 140c
-
@lxoliva I have right to exclude you from the writing in my pocket book - until/unless I give/sell it to you. You cannot surrender liberty.
-
Certainly not my intention, of course. Just an observation. Until you posted that dent about not being opposed I thought you were.
-
@psquid Ara toca una mica de tr...he d'escriure per dilluns, molt. A més, la setmana que ve la nueva interfaz de la s
-
If you actually listened to what anyone else actually said, you would know. Blocked.
Patrick Niedzielski likes this. -
He keeps on writing in catalan! How the hell does he do that! /cc @x11r5
-
@jxself I wonder if that thought followed from my often stating RMS's position, plus an assumption that I shared it
-
That block is supported.
-
mistake is that you think freedom needs a philosophical foundation. the restrictions you would place on a persons actions need one.
-
@zotz a slave owner may think slavery abolition restricts his freedom, but he didn't have that freedom in the first place
-
@zotz some perceive copyleft as restrictive of their freedom to abuse others; copyright abolition as an attack on their freedom
-
@zotz it's the philosophical foundation I sustain as needed that sets apart such false claims for freedom from legitimate ones
-
we will never agree so long as you think freedom needs justification in the first instance. all the best.
-
@lxoliva totally agree with you.
-
@zotz it's not so much justification as a balance when there's a clash between conflicting claims for freedom
-
nope, conflicting restrictions perhaps.
-
@zotz it's when we favor one default over another that we show our biases; I'm looking for a rationale that doesn't depend on bias
-
I am happy to be biased towards freedom and require wanted restrictions on freedom to be justified.
-
@zotz I understand and sympathize with your claim for defaults, but it's when there's a clash that things get tricky
-
@zotz precisely because one's freedom ends where the neighbor's freedom starts; that's far less than "whatever we may want to do"
-
@zotz when both A and B claim "freedom X", but only one can X at a time, does your bias towards freedom favor A or B?
-
@zotz the easy cases are, well, easy; it's the hard ones that are hard :-)
-
@lxoliva the point of contention seems to be, "author's right of control over a work" as a moral right, I find this ludricrous on it's face.
-
@zotz let X be eat the last cookie for a concrete example
-
@lxoliva I don't follow the leap from "right to secrecy" to "right to control once divulged", the basis for this seems weak at best.
Crosbie Fitch likes this. -
@lxoliva similar to my previous comment, what is the justification for "right to secrecy" implies "right to control"?
-
@kevingranade see, I dislike that alleged right as well. it *is* harmful to society IMHO, I just couldn't prove to myself it's unethical
-
@kevingranade part of the difficulty is that it can be achieved in a copyright-less world, AFAICT without any unethical sub-action
-
@kevingranade so for the compound action to be unethical, either my assessment of any of the sub-actions is wrong, or ...
-
@kevingranade ... a compound action by a single agent can be unethical even when all of its component actions are ethical (how?)
-
@kevingranade consider this: I wrote a poem. you heard about it, and you want to translate it
-
@kevingranade question 1. is it unethical for me to stop you from translating it?
-
@kevingranade surely, I can refuse to give you (or anyone else) a copy, and through that (ethical?) action, I stop you from translating it
-
@kevingranade or, I can demand you to commit yourself to not translating it before I'll give you a copy. mission accomplished. unethical?
-
@kevingranade or (induction) I can give someone else a copy, but only after she commits herself to likewise stopping you from translating it
-
please, this is a bogus example. you need a better one.
-
@kevingranade none of these sub-actions fail the natural right test, but if they're ethical (Q2. are they?), why is the result ludicrous?
-
@lxoliva implicit assumption: such an agreement is morally valid.
-
@lxoliva an additional implicit assumption: copyright is accurately described by this scenario. (I don't think it is)
-
@lxoliva copyright is imposed globally, an action can be moral and yet be immoral to require in this way (mandatory insurance?)
-
@zotz what's bogus about it? it's a perfectly simple (minimal, even) case of conflicting claims to freedom
-
@lxoliva even if we are discussing ND, it relies on globally imposed copyright to function, so suffers the same problem to an extent.
-
@lxoliva the main problem is that outside some other agreement re cookie contention, it isn't immoral but rather tragedy of the commons.
-
@lxoliva implicit assumption is wrong phrase, bad implication that you weren't considering they may be invalid.
-
@kevingranade thanks, but no, I explicitly ask whether that agreement is ethical
-
@kevingranade but I'm not trying to model copyright. I'm just trying to stop you from translating my poem
-
@kevingranade yup. that's the difference between right/wrong and good/bad. FSD is based on right/wrong reasoning; maybe FC's on good/bad?
-
@lxoliva I'm just describing another potential weakness of the argument, even if valid it may not apply to the general case.
-
@lxoliva IOW the meta-argument is that this case implies things about the validity of "author control", implication may be weak.
-
@kevingranade yeah. it might also imply natural rights alone are not enough of a basis for moral calculus... it ain't easy, for sure
-
first, cast it into an example according to the simple test template I suggest. second, whose cookie is it? third, what law should be passed
-
@zotz sorry, this one doesn't reduce to a trivial application of the golden rule. it's C's cookie, who lets them both eat it. law, why?
-
I think that one of the reasons this is so hard is because it starts by assuming that #copyright is right.
-
We have to recognize that copyrights are *monopolies* and monopolies are always bad. Now, we sometimes allow monopolies ...
-
Very likely, yes. Would be nice to see you stating your position, not reiterate RMS, unless yours overlaps with his.
-
... but monopolies must always be strictly limited, tightly regulated. Copyright should always be given minimal effect.
-
Useful things like the GPL do not work without copyright.
-
... now given these things, the burden of proof should be on those who seek to extend and expand copyright powers.
-
In short, it is incumbent upon those who seek to suppress cultural freedom to justify it, not the other way around.
-
Ah, but the gotcha there is that the GPL gives back *some* of what copyright takes.
-
@gomerx Also, I am not arguing (at least not now) for complete abolition of ©, only for limiting its power.
-
@lnxwalt280 err... no, it doesn't. let me try to clear that up. why do you think it does?
-
♻ @lnxwalt280: We have to recognize that copyrights are *monopolies* and monopolies are always bad
-
@jxself I support free culture and I'd like to form a sound philosophical basis to strengthen the movement
-
@jxself however, the evidence I've so far gathered seems to point that not all of the claimed freedoms are grounded on ethics, as in...
-
lxoliva While I realize you are personally against ©, leaving the philosophic burden on "free culture" assumes ...
-
@lxoliva ... that © is valid. The burden should rightfully fall on those who would restrict others to justify that.
-
@jxself ... it's unethical to deny them; apparently some are supported by a softer "it's better for all if you respect them" argument
-
Hmm. You said it's always bad. Why would we keep anything that's always bad? I think it's easily abused, but not inherently bad.
-
@jxself ©r&P are evil monopolies that ought to be abolished; "public copyleft" (see manifesto) and anti-deceit laws would be welcome
-
@gomerx Because monopolies themselves are inherently bad. Not abusing them difficult because it goes against our nature.
-
@patrickniedzielski Thanks. I really don't like to block people (only my 2nd) but I just couldn't take it anymore.
-
@jxself software that doesn't respect the 4 sw freedoms controls the user's computations (that's unethical), taking user's freedom away
-
@jxself I don't see a clear parallel to user autonomy over own computations when it comes to other forms of cultural expression
-
@gomerx ... which is why GPL restricts the ability to abuse monopoly powers built into copyright.
-
@jxself so I don't see how to transpose to culture in general the ethical rationale for why the 4 sw freedoms are essential
-
@jxself I think this sums up my position WRT the issues brought up in this debate
-
@coyo I foolishly spent an entire day in futile discussion with someone whose (a)mind is closed (b)blinded by hero worship or (c)trolling
-
@laurelrusswurm all of the above I'm afraid.
-
@laurelrusswurm what's going on?
-
@parlementum Yes, and I should know better. Some life lessons are harder than others.
-
@parlementum @laurelrusswurm And yet, he completely opposes copyright, which in my mind, should automatically grant remix/reuse rights.
-
@lnxwalt280 No. That may be what he says when it's convenient, but he specifically supports !copyright ... specifically @rms ND
-
@psquid A sobar, que ya tomé bastantes días méxico poner énfasis en la conferencia de @octaviotron en infotec
-
@x11r5 STOP DOING THAT
-
@mvdan oh you and your g+. I said that to you in hell
Psychedelic Squid likes this. -
@x11r5 “A rub, which took several days to emphasize the Mexico conference in infotec @ octaviotron” // Google translate
-
@x11r5 glad to see your head is screwed on right :)
-
Dat dent.
-
@laurelrusswurm we are optimists.
-
@psquid i would stop for a while, but it seems that it will be under pressure there. When he moved to fo it was 11
Psychedelic Squid likes this. -
@lxoliva Natural rights suffice. Unnatural powers (#copyright & #patent) can only be granted at the expense of rights. http://bit.ly/972OLk
-
He comes up with the most random ideas.
-
Why does the rule not work? Who says they are free to eat it? A & B? But it belongs to C? If so, this is tough to answer how? Still bogus.
-
it is simple. restrictions on Freedom are unethical unless proven otherwise. Now: prove copyright restrictions are ethical.
drew Roberts likes this. -
Not after they publish it, no. They can keep it to themselves though and prevent any other person from doing anything with it.
-
you *can* modify without source. and you can re-write and release your source.
-
@zotz dude, it's such a simple scenario, I can't believe you're making such a fuss to avoid acknowledging the difficulty
-
@zotz two people are free to eat the last cookie. how does your "freedom by default" policy apply?
-
I think the abundance of freely licensed content will break the monopoly (if it hasn't already). That's why (c) holders are on the offensive
-
@crosbie but how can we tell it is a natural right in the first place, if we can't at first, and can be prevented forever?
-
@crosbie here's a thought: if it would take some restrictive power (e.g. law) to prevent me from exercising it, it's a natural right
-
@crosbie but from that it would seem like we have a natural right to kill each other, which we don't, so something's missing. thoughts?
-
@crosbie also, I don't get why you say IIUC one can't surrender a natural right through an agreement. can you pls elaborate on that?
-
@lxoliva Natural rights are simply the natural & vital powers of the individual in equilibrium with their fellows. See http://bit.ly/xPbaiN
-
@lxoliva The state is supposed to secure/protect our natural rights - not derogate from them via #copyright & #patent. http://bit.ly/AhZCM7
-
@lxoliva We have the natural power to attempt to kill each other, but in equilibrium, we have the overarching right to life (equal&opposite)
-
@lxoliva Natural rights are inherent within the individual. They cannot be surrendered, though the state may choose not to recognise them.
-
@crosbie thanks, that makes sense. indeed, it's precisely the "in equilibrium" that sometimes makes things (apparently?) tricky, no?
-
@crosbie thanks, this all helped me formalize the intuitive notion of natural right I had
-
@crosbie now saying a natural right cannot be surrendered sounds odd. what if I voluntarily commit myself to not exercising it?
-
@lxoliva You can pretend to be another's slave, but that other cannot actually claim you as their property.
-
@lxoliva You can pretend to have sold your kidney to another, but the other cannot actually claim it as their property.
-
@lxoliva You can pretend to have sold your right to disclose another's age, but they cannot actually gag you.
-
apply the simple test from my blog post to the situation and tell me your answer.
-
@lxoliva You can pretend that another has authored your novel, but you do not lose your right to assert the truth of your authorship.
-
@crosbie but if I can be forced to behave as if I was property, what's the difference? legitimacy, for sure; anything else?
-
if they are indeed both free to eat it, the first one who gets it eats it and the problem is solved right?
-
@lxoliva Who can force you to behave as property? Only a state that did not recognise your natural rights would permit such force.
-
@zotz the situation is solved, but I still don't see how your policy of "freedom by default" applies to this case
-
@crosbie well, it doesn't have to be a state (could be individual power), but I think I can grasp your position
-
I don't see why it doesn't, what law is needed to restrict someone's freedom in this case?
-
@zotz now consider the similar case of homesteading e.g. the US far west: A and B are free to take possession of a piece of land
-
you did not answer the previous q. why is there are problem with this land example? i think there is some fundamental miscommunication here.
-
@zotz conflicting freedoms, showing that "default to freedom" misses teh point
-
what conflicting freedoms? they each have the freedom to have it if they get it first. right? where is the conflict?
-
plus, if there is a conflict, it is one freedom in conflict with itself, not two freedoms in conflict with each other.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the