🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fbVJ5.7034$MK5.686900@news1.cableinet.net>,
  "Mike Read" <mread@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > I read about half of it, and scanned the rest as it became clear
> > that
> > > > the arguments being put forward were weak.
> > >
> > > If you believe they are weak, can you explain why?  My guess is
that
> > > you haven't understood them properly, because on my reading they
> > > (at the very least) need a rebuttal, and you haven't offered one.
> > Saying
> > > they are weak doesn't make them so - you need to provide some sort
> > > of argument.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry to disappoint you Mike, but I just can't summon the energy - I
> > just didn't find it made any points interesting enough to take the
> > trouble to point out the flaws.
>
> Then you lose.
>
> ;-P
>

Perhaps I should try to be a little more succinct and pull together my
thoughts on why there is no need to address the article.  What the
article tries to do is avoid the issue of human rights(*), while at the
same time trying to subvert them.  The author knows a head-on attack of
human rights would not succeed, therefore a different tack is tried.

This tack is to obfuscate the issue by bringing up so
called 'arguments', saying just how 'difficult' it is, and 'oh the poor
old courts will be so confused', etc., etc.  It goes on in great detail
about the complexities of the situation, lulling the reader into a
similar, 'Gosh, the whole thing's a terrible mess', type of attitude.
It therefore concludes that the only option is to drop the subject and
not bother protecting people's work because of all the 'difficulties'.
The reader, having gone through all the rubbish being spouted is
compelled to agree.

Now what the article has done is, very cleverly, got the reader to
unwittingly agree to suspend some of their Universal Human rights -
without ever having actually mentioned them.  It is this insidious
aspect of the article, that is so dangerous.

You don't need to argue the article point by point, because the basic
principles at stake override the need to go into minutiae.


(*) - http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 23.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable
remuneration...

Article 27.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.