So, when you are reading your own writing, which you consider to be your “intellectual property”, do you believe that you are thereby causing all other persons to “not” be able to acquire “full property rights to” each of the rays of light which reflect off it?
That argument is ridiculous. For, if you, for example, consider the “use” of a book, you quickly realize that (a) the “use” of the book which enables you to study the book, an apparently legitimate activity, and (b) the “use” of the book which enables you to copy the book, an allegedly illegitimate activity, do not necessarily differ. For (a) to study the content of the book via the harvesting the rays of light which reflect of it and then the writing of summaries of key sections or the copying of the patterns and symbols which constitute key sentences into a notebook and (b) to copy entirely the content of the book via the harvesting the rays of light which reflect of it and then the copying of the patterns and symbols which constitute the entire book into a notebook do not, in their “use” of the book, differ. How can some one seriously tell me that, because they partially own the book but not me, my pen, my house, my chair, my desk, or my notebook, I am allowed (a) to do action A to the book and then action X to my notebook but not (b) to do action A to the book and then action Y to my notebook?
Why don’t you just admit the problem outright instead of dancing around it. All this “original media”/knowledge/information stuff is nonsense. It should have no bearing on your argument whether or not the human brain (in any state) is another piece of property that can copy information, or whether such devices are external to one’s person.
This admits that random contact with a copyrighted work, even without accepting any contract, permanently creates a property claim of the copyright owner onto that person or his property. You are comfortable allowing someone to gain a claim to someone else’s property, but not their person.
In the case of unlicensed commercial competition with the copyright holder, one can understand the moral case for prohibiting such. But not all forms of redistribution are competition. And even if they are, in some cases they may have a moral case of their own. This is why I don’t like prohibitions. I think the furthest extent you can take it is to seize revenues.
I don’t think you can own information. Every additional copy means more draconian methods of ensuring that each copy is used “properly”. I do believe, however, that mass-scale redistribution can be curbed without opening Pandora’s box.
It’s actually a quite ebullient field of science. However, I did admit earlier that a theory of information is not necessary to have a valid theory of intellectual property. One needs only to look at human action to do that, and Rothbard saw that quite clearly.
The use of information science is only employed to dispel the fallacy that information is not scarce (despite the fact that human action indicates that it is, many people claim it is not).
I can burn a CD with my own material (you know the stuff that Is actually scarce, versus your pattern).
The only way your example here is relevant is in direct agreement between the originator and a consumer. A third party can’t be subject to the agreement.
But am I allowed to “hide” my house “in [my] clothes to smuggle [it] into the restaurant”? Again, unless you own my house, your purported analogy is quite clearly not analogous.
I must say, at this point the anti-IP argument is not based on rights, facts, ethics or morality, but just on the possibility of finding the slightest loophole in the law. That is not an argument at all.
Apparently you missed the point of that first sentence. But, in any case, again, unless you own my house, your purported analogy is quite clearly not analogous.
I don’t like that you can make me a criminal by generating a complex and ‘unmemorizable’ image of a mandelbrot fractal, declaring that it is your information that I have no right to perform the act of ‘observation’ with and then leaving it in the periphery of my vision such that there are directions I can’t look at or else be criminal.
when I say I don’t like it. I mean its incomprehensibly silly.
A pattern or a concept, like “poem”, isn’t property. There are arbitrary time and scope limits on IP because the laws would otherwise totally stifle us. Whoever created each of these letters in my post or the patterns of the words would have a claim against me for typing this response.
Your #7 is a strawman, based on your fallacious #2 (where you amusingly seem to employ the Labor Theory of Value whilst calling others socialists).
The only type of valid contract you can form between artist (A) and buyer (B) is in regards the object purchased (that exact physical specimen alone) and B’s allowable behavior. If B copies A’s work this can be a violation of “failure to perform” (the act of refraining from copying). If C somehow gets a copy of A’s work, A’s only course of action is to prove B copied the work.