Property

I thought it was cool how each of the readings tied in the same theme. The readings all fit together nicely. The reading I liked the most was Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. I found the idea that something becomes your property only once you exert labor over it to be quite interesting. However I do not think it was necessary for Locke to provide 1000 different examples of all the ways common property can become personal property. (ie: collecting nuts, gathering acorns, fetching water, picking apples, etc). I realize that it is supposed to be taken metaphorically and applied to laws of print property, but after a while Locke's writing became a little redundant. Also there were so many religious references that I felt like I was in church. Although it got repetitive at times Locke's writing was very sensible and well thought out.

I also found Fielding's work to be interesting but not in the same way Locke's was. Locke's writing was sensible and intelligent whereas Fielding's ideas confused me because they were not well thought out. Fielding argues that by plagiarizing one is doing a great service to the author. I think this is ridiculous because the author's name is never mentioned so unless someone reads the plagiarized work and immediately realizes that it is taken from someone else, it would be assumed that the work belongs to whomever wrote it. (Does that make sense? I don't think I worded it properly...) Anyway, I just wasn't sure how plagiarizing can be a great service to the original author when there is no credit given to the original author. Maybe Fielding expected everyone to just know where the plagiarized work originated from, but I'm sure most people did not.