So the employee is already not allowed to do it. So why the need for IP?
There is absolutely no way to copy files from my computer without altering something. The CPU usage will increase, bits will be moved on the harddrive, log files will be generated, etc. etc.
Every work is derivative. There is no such thing as an original work, only an original interpretation. Man does not create in a knowledge vacuum.
Copying a film, is simply a derivation. Copying a song is a derivation. The original copy is unchanged. A new copy has been created with new property. There is no loss of value (pay attention Stranger) to the first film maker, because we don’t work from the labour theory of value, we work from the subjective theory of value.
The only way to support an objective loss of resale value in property, would be to deny the marginal revolution.
Are you asking me why property laws are needed?
By that argument, counterfeiting money does not cause a loss of value either. Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited.
You’re not allowed to create a derivative of something that was obtained illegally.
That’s exactly right. Which is one of the arguments against government monopoly of money.
So are you saying that money has objective purchasing power? Because I am pretty sure money doesn’t have objective purchasing power, that the purchasing power of money fluctuates and is subjective.
You’re missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes. By your argument, more people learning to read and write devalues reading and writing. You’re basically refuting the possibility for progress by making a claim that every new work is original and not a derivation (if that is what you are saying), and you’re also making a grave error by insisting that more value is created by having less aggregate knowledge.
I believe this is the market as zero sum game stuff which I thought most Austrians understood to be bunk.
You could say that same for any resource, good, or so on. If we all share food, we will never go hungry. If we all share oil, we can commute as far as we want. And so on and so forth, typical communist argument.
Of course. And abolishing this monopoly does not mean that anyone should have the unlimited right to make copies of dollars. In fact it is the opposite, the ability of privileged groups to make copies of dollars should be outlawed.
The comparison you make is flawed because knowledge is not a scarce good.
Try again.
Yes, it does mean that. The bank would be able to create as many dollars (ie. bank notes) as it wanted. The problem for the bank would then be rapid depreciation of their currency. Since it is the banks interest to be in business, and since they want the people using their bank notes, they wouldn’t do this. People would want more bank notes, but the bank wouldn’t be willing to make them if it didn’t serve the bank’s interests.
Such groups shouldn’t exist under any law. Hence, the abolition of the monopoly on money.
But you’re making the exact opposite argument with regards to intellectual monopoly. You’re saying that knowledge should exist as monopoly, and that competition should be outlawed.
Much like in a free banking system, you are perfectly allowed to create your own information under IP, only you are forbidden from reproducing a competitor’s information. There is no such thing as an intellectual monopoly.
Information is a scarce good however, your repeated attempts to confuse information with knowledge and ideas notwithstanding. It is information that is protected by IP. Information requires skills, capital and labor to produce, hence it must be owned and protected.
But isn’t all knowledge a derivation? Or are you claiming that every idea is formed in a vacuum, separate from other ideas, language, mathematics, environmental influences etc?
I understand how paper, harddrives, DVDs, Blu-rays, floppy disks, film, paintings, books, iPods, Walkmans, miniDVs, CDs, and brain cells can be property. But I do not understand how abstract concepts and ideas can be property.
So are you saying that information exists independently of its creation? If that is so, you have undermined your own argument. If not, then you are playing a semantic game with me.
What is the difference between knowledge and information?
This is LTV stuff. Very surprising.
Fallacy of composition.
Good thing that we are not discussing abstract concepts and ideas then, because that only adds to the confusion.
One last time, copyright protects information.
Information has a physical manifestation.
What is the legal basis for the restriction of my use of my property? I agree I should be punished/held responsible for the theft. Once the punishment/restitution is settled, however, why is my use of my property restricted? The raw materials I use are my property.
As a very simple example, say you write a short poem. I steal your poem, and in the short time it’s in my possession, I memorize it. I’m caught, return the poem, and compensate you to your satisfaction. We’ve agreed the matter is settled, in a very legally binding way. I then legally purchase a notebook and a pen. Is it your claim that I may not write down the poem, from memory, on my paper using my pen?