How would you do that without disassembling that car?
irrelevant.
Nonsense.
Strawman.
Argument settled. You are not aware of basic physical laws.
I’m aware that you don’t understand when analogies break down. I’m aware that you are not capable of showing how your disassembling question is relevant.
I’ll give you another chance. To make an identical copy of the car, you need physical access to the car itself, and thus you have to violate the car owner’s property. If you’re just making something that looks like the car, that’s not a copy, just an imitation.
The same applies to any other form of copyright. Without physically accessing the media, which is owned by the author, it’s impossible for you to make a copy. Hence any copy in existence is evidence that the media has been accessed illegally.
O RLY? Can’t get blueprints or instructions or anything like that? Only and solely disassemble? Really?
It’s not owned by the author.
Why on Earth would the blueprints be given away?
Endless repetition isn’t going to make that true.
so kind.
imitation (plural imitations)
Regardless, if I had knowledge of how to build my own copy of your car with my materials there would be no crime in building it. i.e. if i just ‘miraculously’ know how to build a car like your car but not your car. what could be the problem ? This is to underline that you must recognise that the act of building is a separate action from the act of gathering the knowledge of how to build. if someone that ‘shouldnt’ know how to build your car but does, informs me. I am not a criminal from having being told things, or from the act of building a car with knowledge that I posses. I certainly can’t hand back knowledge.
That doesn’t answer my question, actually. You’re presuming something without reason.
Then show that the author owns it. Now. Don’t assert–PROVE.
The shirt + blue dye becomes yours. These arguments trying to squeeze intellectual property (IP) into a Lockean tangible property (TP) context are getting tiring. You’re not proving anything by pointing to the ridiculousness of such attempts. Blue dye is not IP. It’s just TP. A logo or a trademark protected symbol (in blue) is another matter. Your purchase of a T-shirt with a trademark protected logo does NOT transfer you the right to make T-shirts with such logo on them and sell them for profit (though you can still doodle it on a sheet of paper on your dining room table). A $100 bill (a white sheet of paper with GREEN DYE on it) is $100 more valuable than a similar sized white sheet without the green dye, but EVERYONE knows that the green dye on its own is not what’s making the bill worth $100 more than a white sheet without it.
Z.
This is a scientific forum. We don’t admit miracles.
Yet you can still refrain from acting upon it.
Why should he refrain?
Think that might have something to do with the fact that you can’t own the intangible?
I did quite handsomely demonstrate that your story of DVD’s and ‘somethings of values’ was no positive argument for your claim that when people buy things they don’t come to own what they have bought.
I had the right to print t-shirts with all manner of logo’s before, during and after someone went to a state agency and TM’d their ‘logo’.
the only restriction on me is not to defraud my customers. if the customers do not consider the logo to mean that you produced the shirt etc, if they simply consider it a graphic and don’t care who drew it or who put it on shirts, then i am in no danger of defrauding them from selling these graphics.
irrelevant. its a device to demonstrate to you that two quite different acts are…quite different.
There is no obligation on me to not act on information I have for my own benefit when I commit no physical crime by so acting.
But your act is the evidence that a physical crime has been committed.
No there isn’t.
someone might construe it as evidence that someone else committed a trespass crime in the past? but what of it. what of me. Listen, I’m sorry somebody found out your physically restricted information and informed me of the contents. but the genie is out of the bottle. i did you no wrong. and i wont unknow things, or act based upon inferior/superseded knowledge to my own self-interest.
You didn’t demonstrate anything, as was handsomely demonstrated by my $100 bill (white paper + green dye on it) example, among others. Keep closing your eyes to the IP paradigm, and keep showing how it’s nothing like TP (wow!). A global economy increasingly producing and consuming (non-Lockean, non-TP) “somethings” has already come very close to figuring out effective means of connecting producers of those “somethings” with their consumers. That “something” which you refuse to recognize as anything of value, as anything scarce, i.e. as property of ANY kind, is already valued and recognized for what it is by most people, states existence notwithstanding. You have already lost this argument, but are merely unaware of the fact.
Z.