You are very full of yourself to believe that your challenges are of relevance to anyone’s opinion of anything but yourself.
Accept that he is not stealing. He is copying. Let us know when you want to start being honest.
Scarcity - physically limited in supply.
How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn’t have to invade other people’s property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.
I’m just trying to figure out what it is that you claim is my argument against IP.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t care about you.
Does that mean that will no longer straw man me?
whereas in reality information is stored in mental deposits deep below layers of mental rock, and mental miners have to be sent out to transfer information from plato land where it is of no use to us everyday folks, and they bring it back to us here on earth as scarce, rival, info-nuggets that would rust without being daily polished…,
If a computer plays music from a CD, it must then “steal” the bits onto the CD drive’s read buffer. Playing music from music CDs is stealing.
In reality, information is inscribed into media, and this inscription is a time and capital-consuming process of production.
Obviously the copyright owner sells you the right to do that when you purchase media.
Second stupidest argument against IP so far.
no argument on that from me. but it does not justify information rights. it only justifies scarce and rival media rights. which we have. its called private property rights in material goods.
Call it whatever you want, the outcome is the same. You are not allowed to make copies.
No. Pits are inscribed into a CD by some algorithm that takes input from an analog signal that is distinguishable from music. When someone reads the CD as music and recognizes it as music, it then becomes music.
LTV again. Someone “discovered” an immutable and constant idea that is just floating in the air, and now claims ownership to it for an arbitrary amount of time.
But you said that copying is stealing??
you are not allowed to make copies from the physical property of another when you are denied access to someone else physical property and the access you require crosses material boundaries and is defacto aggression. you can copy another persons physical property if you are non-invasive. like if i see you reading a page, and then i start to copy down the contents of the page. i have not interfered with your physical page property. my eyes did not send out beams that scarred your paper.
things get interesting when you aren’t denied access to someone elses physical property. like when you have access to a ‘pirates’ physical property.
It is impossible to make an exact copy this way and thus the argument is pointless and irrelevant.
This makes you an accomplice to the crime, and just as liable to retaliation by the copyright holder.
You now hold the title for all top three stupidest arguments so far. It is not stealing if you pay the owner what he asks. Free market economics 101.
well, this is obviously wrong.
obviously you are wrong. an accomplice is someone who materially participates in the commission of a crime. but if ‘I’ do that thing, i did not materially participate in the trespass of another’s property. i did not touch the property.I did not provide tools of mine to help another ‘touch’ the property more effectively. all the touching was done without my ‘accompaniment’
But if I bought the CD, and copied and, and now I’m selling copies, copying then becomes stealing? What about copying without selling?
You’re missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes…that was LS’s quote…his belief that creating what he views as an efficient market is sufficient reason for people to steal information without consequence.