Pirates copies are actually inconvenient to get because of the difficulty in finding quality copies and nice download sites involved.(And there’s also a tint of danger of downloading from shady sites) However, a cash strapped teenager have lot of time and can afford inconvenience.
This is not necessary true for adults who have lot of money and whom time is scarce. So they are willing to pay for convenience.
If a convenient music store wish to succeed in the marketplace, it might be willing to give incentive to musicians to gain access to more music libraries. Moreover, it could succeed by making their music libraries more available for download than your typical pirates source, which depend totally on the whim of uploaders and their unreliable upload capacity.
Or ever for that matter, but my point was that getting the “IP” does not make you the legit owner or originator. If I made 90% of the movie avatar, but then dang it that wiley james cameron didn’t sleep for a week and beat me to 100% he shouldn’t get 100% ownership of the idea. But of course I don’t buy into the falsehood that you could own an idea at all.
If you make 90% of the movie Avatar you can still release it and it won’t violate any copyright. Unfortunately, it will also be worthless and you will have wasted your time and money.
But… isn’t one of the reasons for IP to encourage creation of IP? I gotta admit I would feel pretty discouraged. Also should I be murdered for copying james cameron?
As I said, you do not create Avatar because you do not have the talent and means to do so, not because IP law prevents you from doing so. In fact IP law encourages you to do so by protecting your creation and allowing you to reap the full benefits of it.
Ideas don’t arise full formed, therefore IP discourages people from developing the partial ideas required for a grand idea because someone will probably beat them to the grand idea.
However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to.
They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.
From Daniel’s position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel’s definition I did not have.