No, having access is being traded. LvMI offers lots of materials without IP restrictions. People still buy the books even though some may print them out at home. What is being sold is the book form, the vector of communication, not the information itself.
Can punishment ever be legitimate in a libertarian society, since there is always a chance that we punish the wrong culprit?
Who is we? [;)]
I would like to think that in a libertarian society, there will be little punishment, and a lot of restitution.
I don’t really find any sense in the concept of ‘punishment’ in matters or law and property - punishment is a concept subject to all sorts of interpretations and receptions, in that whether something is a punishment or not may easily differ between both the punisher and the punishee (regardless of ‘guilt’). I would rather speak of the concept of responsibility, restitution and the burden of proof. To fail to carry out a contracted resitution (or to oppose such a carrying out) whose appropriateness has been reasonably demonstrated is just as absurd as to say, “Well, I believe I’m sitting in a room, but my fallible senses may deceive me, ergo I had better believe I am not sitting in a room and act as though I weren’t.” Skepticism of this sort is not only logically indefensible, it confuses the very notion of ‘knowledge’ altogether. ‘Absolute’ or ‘certain’ knowledge, free from even the possibility of erroneous reasoning, is pure bunk.
That has to be the dumbest question for a statist to ask, because if we’re going to say that libertarianism cannot work because we might punish the wrong culprit, then the same applies to any statist political philosophy. What is more, there is proof that the state has in fact punish the wrong culprit. (Btw, I know you’re not a statist.)
Then it is not OK for you to access my computer without my permission either.
Should information be regulated by law?
Isn’t a threat information?
Please explain then why the market treats information as property when the state is not involved? Come back when you can observe reality.
So the information is irrelevant. So you only pay for the method of communication.
If you don’t get the information then the method of communication is irrelevant. You have it completely backwards.
Yes, for you and many Austrians what is actually occurring in the marketplace is irrelevant because it directly contradicts your theory.
Yes, you have confused the state’s protection of IP as being the same as the marketplace’s treatment of IP. The marketplace treats information as property, it won’t change because of your assertion.
Then what is the point of including the information if people are only interested in buying books? Why waste the ink and energy putting the information in if people don’t care about the information?
Answer, the information is what is being sold, the method of communication is secondary. People will use many different methods of communicating information as long as the information is included. Without the information they will not pay for any method of communication. This is mental gymnastics on your part to ignore reality.
The information is what has value not the means of communication.
Because information is scarce and people want it. No one is advocating that things can’t be kept secret, or that ideas can be exchanged for other things.
As soon as the creator of the idea gives it to a second person, the second person also has their own copy of the idea, and owns the copy of the idea in their mind. People can do as they wish with their property.
They are paying for the communication of the information. The communication gets them the information. Without the communication, there is no information transfer. The information is not irrelevant. The information is relevant. That is why the person is paid: to get the information out of them. How is this done? Through communication.
Just like an owner of a mine shaft doesn’t pay for gold. He pays for the labor, which then gets the gold. If he pays for the labor, and doesn’t get the gold, does that make the labor irrelevant?
Where does it contradict the theory? There are “self-proclaimed” Austrians, and I believe (but I could be wrong) some more prominent ones who believe in IP laws.
So what you’re saying is that no one has bought any books from the store that are available online for free in some digital form.
So if I show that at least one person has bought one book from here, knowing fully well the information contained within the book was freely available and freely accessible to them, then I have proven you wrong.
I have bought a book from here whose contents are freely accessible to me from here.
So you are wrong.
Wrong. Re-read what I wrote.
You have it completely backwards.
Do you understand a priorism? Really, do you?
There are no free markets.
The marketplace [sic] treated the earth as flat too. In fact, sometimes when debating with you, I get the feeling some flat earthers still exist. [:D]
There may be some cases where people prefer to have books rather than other means of storing information. So what? Will people buy books that do not contain the information they are looking for?
You and LS are confused in thinking that because one person gives information to another person it is not freely available to everyone. This is not how all information moves about in the marketplace. The reason you buy information is because you don’t have it. If everyone had free access to all information no one would ever buy information from anyone. In the marketplace people buy information all the time. You are wrong.
I read what you said. Your wrong.
Do you understand that your delusions about how you think the marketplace works are contrary to observations of the actual marketplace? Do you really understand that?
Wrong again. We are in the free market now.
When debating you I can’t help but think that Austrians are really closet tyrants and as much of a threat to freedom as any statist. At least the statists don’t pretend to be for freedom.
And when someone buys an apple pie, are they buying the IP of food, or the actual, labour produced tangible good?
How can you distinguish between the IP in a book or recording, and the IP in a steak or soft drink?
Are you saying you don’t know the difference between a recipe for apple pie and the apple pie itself?
Are you saying you don’t know why “Are you saying you don’t know” isn’t protected intellectual property?
I will admit I have not been paying attention to the discussion beyond this point, so forgive me if someone else has already responded to this point.
Any and all programs involve manipulating the computer hardware and changing the states of various switches, relays, transistors, and other such small electronic devices. You would object if I could find a way to change the time of your clocks, watches, temperature on your oven, or the state of any other device or machine in your home. Computers are no different. Also, merely hacking into a computer and going nothing (even leaving no trace) would be just as invalid as breaking and entering a house and not stealing anything. After the lock is picked, you lock it back after entering.
Information isn’t bought or sold. Communication and education are. Without a medium, there is no information exchange. Paper isn’t an idea. It’s a physical thing with words and pictures on it. Reading this is what creates the idea in the reader’s head.
The mine operator buys labor to get him ore. He doesn’t buy the ore from the mine.