No it’s not. It’s lossy.
what isn’t?
I brought up human nature. What people actually are doing believe it or not is more important than what you think they should do. Drug laws fail because people like to use drugs. You saying that information can not be owned is contrary to what happens in the marketplace. How do you propose to force people into believing that information in their possession is not theirs? Because if they view the information as being owned then information will be treated like property.
people can treat their cats like dogs, offering them bones, and calling them rover.
So if that part is included…then the contract is valid? Make up your mind…does the author own the book or have claims on its use or not? Again, you are confusing how effectively something can be enforced with whether or not it is enforceable.
Paper, laser discs, RAM, magnetic tape, etc.
How you acquire the information matters. If it is through effort to violate a contract or through theft then you can’t have it. Again, your questions show your own instinct towards the information as being the property of somebody else, otherwise there is no need to have a contract because if I don’t own something I can’t make a valid contract restricting it’s use with anybody.
all lossy depending on your timeframe and environment. some more than others. and some people have photographic memory.
Show me one person who can memorize hundreds of pages of text, recall them years later, and write them down identically, and I’ll show you an exception we can safely ignore.
ok, so your IP only extends to arbitrary long sections of text… short texts are not covered under your IP.
and if knowers of illicit information co-mingle this with other or new information, this new information is tainted and they cannot act on it?
Irrelevant. Charles made no contract. Also, don’t go down the road of legal positivism.
VHS tape is a medium. It degrades over time. Floppy disks are a medium. They degrade over time. IOW: both are “lossy” in what I take to be your non-standard usage of lossy. What’s your point?
I don’t know that much at all about IP arguments on either side.
But what you said here is what happens. If A is thought to be A, then it is A. Somebody else might define the same object as B, and therefore they go around saying it is B. So they view information as property and therefore treat it as property. There needs to be consistency to any theory or else it has knowledge gaps. Are there knowledge gaps, in other words, inconsistencies to IP laws or vice versa? How far away the conclusion has diverted from what it initially has been thought of, in this case, how far the idea of property has diverted from what property was initially defined as does help to clarify the inconsistencies. If the definition of property has to be revised to fit the theory, then it is a valid question to wonder if the original object ‘property’ is still being discussed. That same definition of property would have to fit all theories in which a principle of property is applicable. If the definition of property used in IP laws is not applicable to other fields - that same definition - then it is no longer valid to affirm ones theory with property because it is not property (that same definition) used in all cases, ie. inside and outside of IP law situations.
People can use information and treat it as property but are they using and treating such property in a manner that is consistent with all applications in which property, as a concept, is used. For instance, is the defined use of property in IP laws applicable to a the property called a jeep that a person bought honestly from the car dealer down the road? The definition in each instance can not change because if it does that would mean property can be not only A but B and that’s illogical.
Exactly.
The very ACT of paying $30 for a single DVD with “SOMETHING on it” while holding a shopping bag with a box of 10 EMPTY DVDs for which you paid $2 total, PROVES that you assign quite a significant VALUE to that “SOMETHING on it” i.e. it exists as something of value for which you just voluntarily paid $30. The only thing you need to ask yourself is whether that “SOMETHING on it” becomes YOURS (instead of remaining the property of the creator/producer) by the mere $30 transaction that just occurred. Most (decent, honest) buyers have the intuition that the “SOMETHING on it” is NOT theirs – that the $30 doesn’t even come CLOSE to reflecting the COST of creating the “SOMETHING on it”, which would intuitively have to be the case for the actual ownership of “SOMETHING on it” to change hands. You pay to experience and enjoy the “SOMETHING on it”, NOT to own it.
Z.
And if a company has a monopoly on building chairs, you would probably pay a lot more for chairs than you do now. So what? Does that mean that only one person should be allowed to build chairs?
Of course it becomes yours. That’s what transactions DO.
…
The very ACT of paying $30 for a with while holding a shopping bag with a box of 10 for which you paid $2 total, PROVES that you assign quite a significant VALUE to that i.e. it exists as something of value for which you just voluntarily paid $30. The only thing you need to ask yourself is whether that becomes YOURS (instead of remaining the property of the creator/producer) by the mere $30 transaction that just occurred.
If he has no contract, then not only is it illegal to copy the book, it is also illegal to read it, as the book still belongs to the copyright holder.
If you find a car parked on the street, you are not allowed to drive away with it just because you have no contract with its owner! In what twisted world would that be possible?
Who has monopoly on creating DVDs with “SOMETHING on them”? Who holds and who grants this “monopoly” on creating software, movies, books, etc.? Who’s stopping you from investing $300mil into creating the next blockbuster movie? Do you really think that the state has ANYTHING to do with this, and that without the state creators of IP would not care as to what happens to their property?
Z.
If you find a car parked on the street, you are allowed to make your own car that is built the same and drive that away