Guys, fallacy 2.
No, your copy is stolen property, since you never acquired the right to copy information and it was specifically excluded from your contract.
Whether or not you have a contract with the property owner makes no difference at all. He fully reserves the right to make copies. He never transfers this right to you. Any violation of this right is therefore theft.
Here is your fallacy 2, where you come to the same conclusion as above. However, I have already done a reductio on that conclusion (in bold above). Can you resolve this apparent paradox or not?
"Fallacy 2: Information is not scarce
"Ideas can be communicated orally following their formulation in the mind, but useful information can only be produced while working with media, can only be inscribed and communicated through media, and can only be enjoyed and consumed through a media. Often they must be recorded from the physical world using sophisticated instruments to transform physical patterns from one aspect to another, recordable one. This physicality makes information essentially indistinguishable from media. Information can only exist if media takes a specific physical shape. For example, if one wants a recording of actors riding along a mountain range, one must send physical actors to this mountain range and record their physical presence with cameras writing on film or on digital memory, a process that requires a substantial capital investment. The uniqueness of such an event is self-evident, and even if another producer of information were to hire the same actors to ride along the same mountain range and film them with the same equipment, the resulting stream of information would still be completely different in physical structure. This makes information a good that is inevitably bound to a physical structure, which are scarce, therefore a tangible good. Any existence of an identical copy of this information stream is physically connected to this original recording through acts of communication with the producer’s property, and it is impossible for it to be a result of an independent act of creation.
“In fact, one can determine whether or not an intellectual property is legitimate based on the nature of the information; when the information is unique and will never re-occur in the lifetime of the universe, then it is scarce and comes only from one original source. If the information is not unique and can re-occur again and again, then it is not scarce and can be considered super-abundant, as it would be in the Garden of Eden. For super-abundant information, no conflict can possibly arise, as no labor is ever spent in its production. For information that is unique and specific, the scarcity of this information will grant the one who possesses it a productive advantage, and many others will attempt to obtain this information. Because it is unique, the only way to obtain it is by either contracting with the original producer, or by violating this producer’s physical property. This is why there is a market for information in the first place, and this is why counterfeiters seek to obtain this information in order to produce copies. Were the information not scarce, there would be no need at all to engage in copying! (In comparison with patents for ideas, one never sees internet pirates redistributing patented ideas, as these have no scarcity and no value.)”
will you apologise for copying the content of my post? whether or not you have a contract with me or the LvMI makes no difference at all. I fully reserve the right to make copies. denying that right to you. any violation of this right is theft.
regardless, you are simply perverting the word theft. theft is when you deprive an owner of property. so that they lack it to the extend that you have it without their permission. when i copy the cd i bought. the cd producer does not lack a cd that they had before i ‘stole’ it, and has not had the power to make copies taken away. they retain that power over any cd’s they in fact own.
That one can reserve the right to make copies is precisely what you’ve got to prove.
And the capacity per disk changes as well. This is specifically prevalent in technology. Consider Intel’s ability to fabricate smaller and smaller die sizes(32nm, 25nm). The same amount of resources are used but a higher capacity in performance and quantity of die die produced per 1 cubic inch of silicon is vastly increased. So while the physical resource which makes up the object may be scarce, the capacity it holds exponentially expands to the point that it’s content, electrons, is not scarce.
Likewise for disks. A 5.25" harddrive all have the same platter size, but the capacity per platter changes as technology allows. In other words we get more out of the same amount of resources.
And what’s great about this point is data moves across a physical media in the exact same way. Either by light, or by electricity over a copper medium. It’s all electrons though. The way we see and interpret images, the way a camera takes an image, and the way we send data over most mediums is done by the use of electrons.
I have gladly removed the content as a courtesy.
Fallacy 4.
Why? It already happens.
you don’t have the right to the market value (at some point in time) of the property you have, just the right to the property you have. inflation fallacy fallacy refuted.
Fallacy 2.
how is it fallacy 2? do you have reputation rights? are reputations scarce?
Of course. One is not allowed to pose as myself on the marketplace. It will cause my clients to mistrust me.
i am referring to me telling people that you are a believer in IP and them believing me and this affecting your reputation and them choosing not to do business with you
That makes no sense.
I tried to present Information as Property which, if accepted, would circumvent much of the contracts-related problems discussed here.
Z.
I say something that is a fact about you that people had not yet factored into their estimation of you, and they adjust their estimation. this is commonly called a variation in your reputation. it can result in people liking you more or less. and choosing to shop from your store more or less often.
it need not even be a fact.people may respond to me saying emotional things about you. fashions may change. people might decide that they think less of IP believers than IP deniers, and they might shop on the basis of such judgements
do you comprehend?
No. How is this relevant?
the general estimation that the public has for a person; “he acquired a reputation as an actor before he started writing”; “he was a person of bad report”
this can effect the market price your goods will retail at.
do you understand that you don’t have a right to the market price of your goods under any particular reputation scenario. the price at which your good will sell depends not just on your ownership of the good. but on the subjective valuation of would be purchasers. this can and does fluctuate without your having any claim to it being at any particular level.
if people subjectively value your cd less, because i have copies. that alone is not grounds to sue me. inflation-fallacy fallacy refuted.
That depends on how large of a group you are looking to repeat. In your 0 and 1 example, if we are simply looking for the string 1010, it is extremely likely that a monkey randomly typing 1’s and 0’s will type that string in a very short amount of time. For any set of four consecutive characters in the infinite string, there is a finite number of combinations – exactly 16, in fact.
Likewise, given that there are a finite number of keys on the keyboard (X), and that the number of characters making up the complete works of Shakespeare is fixed (Y), any given segment of Y characters in the infinite random string also has a finite number of possibilities (X^Y). Over the course of infinity, the probability of that particular string we’re looking for appearing in a group of X characters approaches 1.
You’re assuming that the length of the string to be found is known and definite. The monkeys must type randomly. They may type one infinitely-long string forever.