1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
6:37 p.m.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 11:25:47 nepal wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:45:18 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
I think this may actually be a language problem.
"Actually my view is very simple on this. You have rights and ownership of
everything you bring into the world when you are born."
Do you mean to say that you have rights and ownership over what you come into
the world with when you are born?
Do you mean to say that you have rights and ownership over what you bring into
the world from the day you are born?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:15 AM, nepal
<nepal.roade(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> wrote:
Then you have no idea what Nature is or you are just being facetious. Actually my view is very simple on this. You have
rights and
ownership of everything you bring into the world when you are born.
Everything else if provided by Nature for ALL living creatures of
which Man is only 1.
I'm listening to "Music for Mallet Instruments, Voices and Organ" by
Steve Reich. As far as I know, he wasn't born with this piece, and I'm
unsure which part of Nature provided it.
[sarcasm] I agree with you. I've just thought up (as in received a
thought of) a new word that all of society will be unable to help
themselves from using and I'm getting a patent put on it so I can
collect royalties. [/sarcasm]
all the best,
drew
Some complex interplay
between what he was born with, his travels, his education, his family
and friends, even the musicians he played with regularly, created this
music. Who has the right to control its expression? Nobody? Just
Steve? Steve for 10 years? Do we put it to a referendum?
This is the classic where people usually scream "don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater". Too bad!
When things change, those that disagree will be resistant. those that
don't won't. None of any example you can think up will change the
fundamental flaw already stated.
p.s. I have an answer to your question above, and it is not any of
the choices you provide.
nepal.