Author: chaosvoyager (---.optonline.net)
Date: 10-25-2003 18:42
I know, I recognize the tone and meaning of your words, and so would everyone who frequents this board, but the general public is signifigantly different in this rather silly regard (just look at how they overreact to some words).
Everytime the actions you describe are called 'theft' or 'stealing', it reinforces any commonly held beliefs that such 'inspiration' is unoriginal, and morally objectionable. It is even worse when such statements come from creative types such as us. Worse, it gives consortiums such as the RIAA and MPAA VERY real legal power to undermine creative works. "After all" They will say in court before a jury, "if the author didn't believe it was theft, then why did they call it 'stealing'? ".
Common people, juries, and courts have a MUCH different definition of theft than creative people. And creative people will be seeing a lot more of the inside of courtrooms these days.
I'm serious. Until software came about, reverse-engineering was not only allowed, but even EXPECTED and ENCOURAGED by the patent system (patents were designed to allow reverse engineering, by protecting the original invention, while allowing those who could understand it to make improvements.) Now such is commonly thought of as 'theft', and hence illegal, despite the fact that reverse-engineering has NEVER been illegal, neither written in law or proven in court.
Just a heads up on the power of words.
|
|
