I agree.
Under the copyright agreement you own the access to your software under any circumstances. If you do not know how someone accessed your software, it does not matter. They are still not allowed to distribute it unless they have an agreement with you. If you do not know how someone stole your car, you still own the car.
This might not matter for people releasing software over pirate bittorrents, something that cannot be traced. But the fact that some piracy is tolerated does not mean that the property right should not exist, just like a restaurant giving away stale food to the homeless does not mean that people have the right to dine at the restaurant without paying.
So you’ve decided that these people won’t make income. Thanks, God. How does IP prevent rich people using all those “sitting” arists today? It doesn’t. It’s called advertising. Why would there be sitting artists anyways if there was (as you argue) no incentive for them to become artists in the first place?
AWWWW. Those poor starving artists! Sniff sniff.
What you are proposing on the other hand is murdering people who don’t obey the dictates of your ‘minimal’ tyranny - well not so minimal since it also ‘enforces’ ‘intellectual’ monopolies in the name of freedom.
Well, you see, you just created a magnificent joke and no one paid you to do it.
Intellectual property protection does not mean murdering violators, only expropriating some of their wealth as compensation for their theft.
Pretty much.
If tomato growers can’t get paid for their product there won’t be tomatoes for you to eat. If novel writers can’t get paid for their product there won’t be novels for you to read. It’s as simple as that. It boggles my mind that people would go as far as accepting a world without IP creations (books, films, music!) JUST so their Lockean “tangible, all-or-nothing, property” dogma would be left unscathed. Amazing!
Z.
Are you seriously making the claim that without IP, there would be no works of art?
the reason i object to people stealing my car is because when they have it i dont have it . the car is scarce and rival.the reason i object to people knowing and using technique T for solving problem P that I call ‘my technique’ is because if i can capture the State I can be onto a nice little earner.
Are you implying that people don’t have a positive right to profit, and they should produce what society wants in order to get their profit?
No, there’ll still be your kid’s drawings on your kitchen wall and plenty of toothpaste commercials left for you to enjoy. All the good stuff would still be there.
Z.
So the enforcement of IP rights is a necessary condition for fine art?
No, it does not, despite your idiotic claim to the contrary.
No need. Voluntary contracts are fine.
Got anything else, or will you just slink back into the darkness?
What was stolen?
The novel’s author too objects to you stealing his novel because you’ll have the sale proceeds and he won’t have them. Sale proceeds are scarce and rival.
Z.
you are just betraying your lack of knowledge of the history of art. do you understand commission? patronage?
would we have michaelango’s statue of david and the sistine chapel? commissioned works.
he doesn’t have a right to a certain market value of tangible goods why should he for intangible goods?
Of course it does. Like any other statist mechanism it ultimately relies on murdering people who don’t submit.
Of course!! Just look at the endless amount of trash that hollywood ‘produces’…
So you don’t mind people stealing your car when you’re not using, as long as they put it back?
Now that I think of it, this is the same debate as fractional reserve banking.
Confidential information.