poor logic. it depends on what varies. the presence of information in our stories does not vary. the ‘dependancy’ does not fluctuate as regards information sometimes being property and sometimes not. obviously the variance relates to the phsyical objects involved and the ways in which someone might copy information from them, i.e. whether it be physically invasive or not.
Your position is that information can not be property and can not be owned. Given that, the rest can be logically deducted.
With your position, the forced copying of information results in no harm to the person forced to share. In other words, nothing is stolen even if i break into your house and copy it. So the hacker has no legitimate fear of punishment for the trespass and copying of data. The hacker has no fear of copying data since this cannot be considered any violation of rights from your perspective. The logical result of your position is that people will be forced to share information since there will be no meaningful punishment to the people who reveal the information.
That doesn’t mean I don’t consider hacking illegal.
Who’s advocating trespass?
No one is advocating trespass. The point is that IP creates a monopoly on an arbitrarily defined idea and forces third parties to obey it.
For example, lets say guy A writes a book. And then some other guy B, independantly and without reading that book writes an article with similar content and posts it on the internet. The Intellectual property position is that guy B should be coerced out of being able to put the information on the internet.
This is stupid and retards the spread of information just so guy A can sell some books in the short run.
What part would be illegal and what would be the punishment. How can I be punished for theft if nothing was taken…according to you?
no your not advocating it, you are just saying trespass as it relates to taking information form other people against their will can not be punished as anything other than simple trespass. If I trespass and take your car I am guilty of two things, trespass and theft. Your position ignores my rights to decide to whom and when I decide to share information. This right is non-existent under your theory. Why should you be allowed to force me to share information? Should I not be allowed to control with whom and when I share information?
Theft isn’t the only crime possible. You can be prosecuted for illegally manipulating the computer.
You’ve dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we’re assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)
Property rights via the principle of original appropiation state the idea is what a person can orginally appropiate. BUT a copy of that idea, meaning, my thinking of the same idea and using the same idea is a COPY. It is NOT the original thing. A clay pot that is copied is an exact copy of that original clay pot BUT is NOT the original clay pot. It is a copy. That is still common sense.
The copy is NOT the original clay pot. So nobody owned the copy until the copier made it. Now the copier owns the copy for they originally appropiated the copy. But another person can copy that copy and they originally appropiate this third copy. Nothing is stolen. New items are being made.
It’s ironic to me that here we are, the Human Race, finding ways of squelching the problems of scarcity, simply by allowing free markets to work. And various advocates, here who want to further economization thereby making higher quality goods available, at a lower price in higher abundance, are called communists of information. it seems so backwards to me.
Who knows. Maybe they never look at the countless example of business models working without copyright. Heck, I don’t think he asked me if I tried a business model that doesn’t relies on monopoly rights.
So far, the Ludwig von Mises Institution is still selling books, and tons of them. They aren’t harmed by people like me “freeriding” by reading Austrian economic books.
Doesn’t good theory translates to good results?
I opened the first Austrian book I had and this is what came up in the first page:
Copyright © 2003 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Indexes prepared by Brad Edmonds
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever
without written permission except in the case of reprints in the context
of reviews. For information write the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518
West Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, Alabama 36832.
ISBN: 0-945466-37-4
You are forced to allow them to access your media.
When was the last time they sued someone for copyright infringement.
If you have known, the Creative Common Attribution license is posted under the main site. Also, David Veksler is looking for people to set up bittorrent servers, last time I check.
Also, Jeffery Trucker, the webmaster of this site is explicitly anti-IP.
Why would LvMI care if someone made copy wholesale of the book and then spread it to their dad, mom, relatives, and everyone around them? I would think LvMI staffers would be happy.
When was the last time someone violated it?
And yet, despite their fluctuating opinions, they still use copyright.
Oh yeah, and there are books available free of charge on their website.