[rayiner]

> This presupposes that one can own information in the first place.

I think the case for owning original digital creations is far stronger than say the case for owning patches of dirt that were here before you were born and will still be here after you're dead. If I make a song or write some software, I'm creating something of my own in the very purest sense. Something that didn't exist before me, something wholly attributable to me. Why shouldn't I be able to own it?

[sneak]

> If I make a song or write some software, I'm creating something of my own in the very purest sense.

I think that's where our emotions fool us, here.

Let's say I write a song. You hear it and sing it every day. Does the song belong to me? Should I have remedies against you for singing MY song? The whole thing is insane.

[sneak]

Because you can't own information. It is impossible.

The case could be made that you can't own real property, sure. But you will find few to back you when you shoot someone with a shotgun for maliciously singing a song you "own" versus maliciously trespassing in your home.

[halter73]

Bad analogy. The only reason it is acceptable to shoot a trespasser invading your home is the issue of safety. There aren't that many people who would back up a landlord shooting their delinquent tenants with a shotgun either. As with copyright infringement, the landlord would need to turn to the courts.

[youngerdryas]

Hey Internet hippy, do you mind if people pass around your diary and photos.