Digital Property Law [was RE: [MUD-Dev] Selling training]

[Steve {Bloo} Daniels]

geoffrey at yorku.ca wrote:

> I.e., the object is considered as a whole, based upon its perceived
> and intended function.  If I was returned the material components of
> the car in a form that no longer functioned as a car, no one would
> claim that I got my car back.  The 'value' is a function of purpose.
> Purpose is a function of context.  So, the only place in which the
> code representing my sword has use is within the context of the vw -
> so the only place there can claim to have been a theft is in the vw.
> And the only place it could be rectified is in the vw.

That's pretty sound reasoning, IMO.  It's the service, not the digital
'property'.

Thanks for injecting some sanity into this thread.

-bloo


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev