If that is the case, then money is also a non-economic good, as the supply of money is theoretically infinite.
Of course. That is why I wrote fallacy 7.
The “copyright contract” is not a contract over copyrights, it is a contract over access rights. The term “copyright reserved” is simply more convenient than enumerating access rights.
Copyrights are never sold to anyone. They are always reserved to the producer. This is what allows him to economically engage in production for consumers.
Rothbard was entirely correct and he did not even for a minute consider that it could go any other way. Rothbard was an economist who understood the greater benefit of capitalist production under the division of labor. It is only since communistic production has become widespread that the communists have started a war on private ownership of information.
Thats only true under the condition of fiat. You are indeed correct that money is theoretically a non-economic good. So the fiat base must somewhat remain fixed.
If we had gold or silver as our monetary solution than you couldn’t make the above statement. As it’s supply is finite.
the supply of commodity money is no more infinite than is the supply of the commodity which it is.
Mining gold is not inflation (and neither is making an original movie on the same set and with the same actors as a previous movie), however producing gold coins with another bank’s seal on them is inflation, as the seal represents the trust of consumers in that bank. To counterfeit their seal is to defraud the bank of its consumer trust.
My argumentation is based on production. Under capitalism, production is rewarded with property protection. Restaurants do not produce raw meant, hence their higher costs are simply an indirect consequence of your purchase of meat.
No matter how many times you claim I advocate the labor theory of value, it will always remain fallacy 8.
An advanced capitalist economy cannot function of commodity money alone. You are advocating primitivism, much as you advocate primitivism with the production of information.
you may be confused about what commodity money is ?
what do you think is necessary? fiat? fiduciary?
No, it’s not private individuals advocating the productive use of other individuals property. It’s with private individuals being permitted to place their own privately owned capital into productive use without their neighbor or anyone else telling them otherwise.
So in a sense, following your own point, the argument of pro-IP is anti-capitalistic. We’ve fabricated a way within positive law to restrict the ability of private individuals to employ their privately owned property into productive use.
Collective ownership never comes into play in any of that.
The limitation of copyright is not a condition of the exchange, it is a limitation of rights. It informs you that you have not purchased the rights to copy, that it is excluded from the contract.
Hence, no contract-violation can alter the fact that the producer owns the copyright.
Money-substitutes that consist entirely of information.
it matters not from my argument. it just makes the proviso not to copy, to be something default rather than particular to the case.
the analysis plays out to the same end result.
accept that i ‘violated your bogus copyright’.
or
insist that i never bought the cd since i eventually copied it… and claim back that original cd, …return to me my 10$ and… allow me to listen to my copy in peace.
disembodied information that is not on any media? (which would otherwise be simply a commodity)
Media and information are the same physical thing.
Sorry but that does not make any sense. Please use correct English.
Whether something is a non-economic good depends on the actual supply of the good, not any theoretical supply. For example, US dollars are not actually super-abundant right now, so they are economized.
Yes, so are Transformers II blu-ray discs. What’s your point?
yeah. so commodity money then [8-|]
The discs may be scarce, but, depending on the technical and institutional frameworks, the movie itself may not be.
Under Rothbardian Title-Transfer theory of exchange If you object to my having copied your media. you can take back your original media if you give me back my money with which I had purchased it. i get to keep my copy that you disapprove of.
If so, replicating information would necessarily entail replicating media.