Uh, I didn’t expect that magnitude of answers to my post…
Since I don’t want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? 
At the original example, the movie maker can contract with the cinema not to reproduce and the cinema can contract with its customers and employees. If the contracts are broken then the movie maker can get them on fraud charges.
If that is not a safeguard enough, and the only way for the movie maker to get a normal profit is for the government to come in and protect him, that just shows that $150 mil movies are not a sustainable business model. People of the future will have to watch cheaper movies or do something else like play sports or video games.
It didn’t.
Downloading books from Mises.org is not stealing since they grant you this right. What you are unwilling to do is violate the rights they the explicitly reserve under their license. By your actions, you are recognizing the legitimacy of copyrights.
find a way for me to disrespect their non-esistant rights that doesnt involve me stating untrue facts, and i will consider doing it. until then, consider my posession of information that i copied from people that copied people that may or may not be pirates as the evidence of my words being backed by my actions that you seem to require (lord knows why)
and whenever you are ready.
short and long text is not-property and property respectively, you claim. when will you retract this or defend it?
accomplices need not have played any part in a given act of trespass in order to have earned the appellation ‘accomplice to trespass’. when will you retract this or defend it?
Stranger, when you’re done grasping at straws you might want to answer this:
Not when it’s out on the net already, or when you don’t effectively restrict access. Those are the scenarios being discussed - obviously, as all others would entail violating other laws (“actual property rights”) as I wrote above.
Now name the actual action you are forced to perform or refrain from, or you have no argument.
How do you supposed we violate mises.org’s copyright?
There are mirrors which mises.org allowed, and bittorrent sources, which mises.org once again allowed. In other words, mises.org make it quite literally hard to violate their copyright right.
The only way to violate copyright is to do it the hard way. Very few people would actually go the length if there was such a convenient and free source.
Mises.org pretty much destory the need for pirates to distribute illegal copies of their book.
Why not?
It was, numerous times. As far as I can tell, all that is left are strawmen from Max and Stranger. Since Stranger has never admitted an error (that I can recall) this debate can go on for weeks.
Finding an unlocked door is not an excuse for trespassing.
Remove the references to the Mises Institute and republish the book under your name.
Replacing the author name or replacing the publisher?
Is this a matter of saying who distributed it?
Everything. Stop stalling.
Why? Plagiarism is not in anyone’s interest. In any case, IP laws are not about plagiarism or fraud, they are about using force to prevent would be competitors from creating improvements on an arbitrarily defined product.
We already ruled out trespassing. Context. Or do you want to define some new crime that includes reading over people’s shoulders?
Stop equivocating. And your also repeating yourself. We’ve already gone over this. You think Argumentum ad nauseam is productive? Honestly it’s not worth anyone’s time or effort to go through and scrutinize all the pathetic strawmen made here. Whatever good case you had has been destroyed by the quality of the posts as of late.
My belief is that the book without any reference to the Mises Institute is an improvement. I take the book, remove everything but the title, republish it. What have I done wrong?
Without IP, I have done nothing wrong, as information is apparently not a scarce and rivalrous good.
That is called “fraud”. We have already gone over this.
Don’t make it personal please.
Stranger is not going to admit he is wrong under any circumstance. He has never owned up to an error in thinking in the entire time I have been here. That is simply a fact. Thinking that you can get him to change his mind or admit an error is unproductive.
Any third party can see his arguments lack merit and that great arguments have been made in response. By getting petty and vicious, you undermine the credibility of what you have written, and possibly the intellectual monopoly argument at large.
Please just let it go.
What you have done is expanded the audience of said information. You ahve made it possible to reach and service additional consumers. You have in a sense raised the standard of living and increased the quantity of goods overall.
That you plagerized is a strawmen but doesn’t deter from the fact that the economy is better off overall as now more product of the same quality is available.
Now due to the competative nature plagerization won’t be a big deal. As many people want you to cite where you got your information from. If the person who was the original author did alot of research, but you didnt, you won’t be able to address concerns specifically over that research and will have to defer to the original author if you want to please your consumers. If people find out that you lied to them and copied his work they will loose faith in your ability to defend it’s arguments and to expand on it in the future. Consumers may then naturally move back toward the original author. So even still through the profit motive you have intensive to be honest.
Other than that though you have essentially increased the volume of goods on the market and offered a selection of vendors to the consumer. Your playing capitalism, thats exactly what you did. Good job.
It is “you’re”, not your.