Exactly, as you accessed the media illegally in order to do so.
So then isn’t every physical thing a form of information?
No.
Define copyright. Are you using the definition that amounts to what exists today under current IP laws, or is there some other definition you are using?
Why do we need seperate IP laws for that? Don’t private property rights already cover that?
Since our matter was settled, I don’t see the justification. Your attempt to control my behavior and property would be a violation of our agreement, and therefore would be aggression. You cannot continually make me pay for the initial illegal act after the matter has been settled.
You committed a new crime. Settlements don’t give you a license to commit future crimes.
What is the crime?
The right to reproduce the information on media.
How is this different from current IP laws?
I don’t see how the section of the law codes that defines these rights is in any way pertinent to this debate.
So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make an exact replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights?
Oh gawd. I must say, your attempts to avoid questions are pretty good but so damn obvious.
So we’re back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information?
Also, you didn’t answer me about derivations. Do you believe creation occurs in a vacuum or do you believe that we build on information we accumulate from others and our environment?
Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things.
What difference does it make? If a media says you are not allowed to access it in order to copy the information to another media, then you are not allowed to do such a thing.
I can’t imagine on what outlandish terms you think you could be allowed to do that, or even be able to. There are entire professions of people capable of telling even the best forgeries apart from the real thing.
Most people have websites on a server somewhere, but that is besides the point. I agreed with that line of reasoning in a hypothetical case where a hacker shut down a website. In that case, the physical alteration of the structure of a hard disk or what have you affected the owner and/or end users.
There could be other scenarios (what you are calling trespass) where “the hacker” merely gained access to information, say a yet to be published book, without violating any agreement with the owner or making physical alteration via use which affected the owner negatively. His server still functions and his book is intact. The hacker in essence dipped his bucket into a stream flowing past his property.
Perhaps this is a grey area, and a case could be made either way depending on other circumstances, like what means the hacker took vs. what access was allowed normally. I don’t know but I am not convinced that the inevitable physical alteration constitutes criminal behavior, just because throwing out the word trespass seems to fit. I think that law in practice has to account for our connectedness and find an acceptable threshold of activity by those who encounter other people’s property.
That is already covered by private property rights via contract rights. So, why the need for IP rights?
it would kind of be in your best interest to defend your point.
Can someone please explain to me how copying is stealing? I’m not talking about a breach of contract. Just a plain copy. How is it stealing.
This is irrelevant. Information is not a scarce good nor a physical thing.
Nice dodge. What does forgery have to do with this? Please, answer the question in my previous comment.
I don’t understand your question. IP rights are part of private property rights and contract rights.
Your scenario is impossible, hence there is no point in responding to it.