Such a claim could not be enforced, and is laughable on its face. Third parties are not bound by contracts.
Is a “trespassers will be shot” sign a contract?
Another dodge. Surely it’s possible.
Then give an example of a violation of IP rights.
No. You can’t just claim ownership of patterns or concepts. Any valid copyright agreement you may be able to forge with a person buying the original scarce, physical object can’t apply to 3rd parties.
No. First of all, a person might not be able to read your sign. Second, murder is clearly beyond the level of justifiable punishment for mere trespass.
Consult a specialist in forgeries. He’ll set you straight on that.
So if there is no sign, you are allowed to trespass, and to profit from your trespass?
Counterfeiting is fraud. What typically is considered “IP rights” violations is different.
Did I say that? Please stop being so disingenuous. The hypo is too vague. I didn’t say that the lack of a sign meant trespass was allowable. I said that mere trespass can not be justifiably punished by murder. Trespass + making a threat may be.
rolls eyes and I’m the one who gets accused of playing semantics games. Allow to try this:
So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make a replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights?
I am awaiting a proper response to this.
That I profit from the trespass is not anyone’s concern. Crimes do not magically become more severe because the perpetrator profits from the crime. If I trespass, the victim is entitled to compensation for the trespass, not for any profits I may have gained by the trespass.
If I break into your house and photograph you in bed with your girlfriend, I have committed a crime, and owe you compensation. The crime is no more or less severe, and the compensation owed no more or less, if I did it because I am a pervert or if I did it because your other girlfriend paid me to. My motives are not your concern; my actions are.
So it’s an argument that only a physics professor can articulate? I’m not sure what value you add to the discussion by making claims you cannot support.
That’s a contract which has nothing to do with capital, labour etc. It also has nothing to do with information freely shared as most information is.
So I will ask again, is information created in a vacuum, or is it created as a derivation of pre-existing information? The difference is, heads you are being dishonest, and tails you refute your own argument. This Morton’s fork may explain why you are now being so evasive.
IP also covers patents, don’t forget. If I can’t make copies after seeing the original work, then only Ford has the right to build automobiles, because everyone else copied Ford’s work. We can apply the same standards to any product that doesn’t occur naturally - the original inventor, or his heirs, are the only ones who can legally make that product. Oh, but wait! Patents cover processes, as well. So things like farming are protected. Only those farmers who learned to do it themselves, rather than seeing it done, get to farm. Or their heirs.
The reason IP law currently has time limits is because IP creates monopolies. This unbalances the market far too much to be allowed indefinitely, so a duration was decided upon. It is an example of state interference in the market, pure and simple.
BTW, Stranger, have you noticed how many of your arguments are circular? Information is property, therefore stealing it is wrong. How can we call it stealing? Well, because information is property!
Yes, tell us what would be the appropriate punishment for simple trespass that causes by your definition no damage?
Once you assume that copying information can cause no harm…which is your position…there is very little grounds for damages…even if in the real world the hacked company just lost 100 million dollars and the company went broke as a result of the copying.
So since this is your idea…tell us what the appropriate punishment is.
I can see you in court demanding the hackers imprisonment for a momentary increased CPU usage…my god the horror of it all. What is the appropriate restitution for increased CPU usage…maybe paying the electric bill for a month …that sounds more than sufficient. Meanwhile the copied data bankrupts the company.
So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient? Hardly a pro liberty approach. Your theory fails to address two major points, one, what happens to information copied by trespass or contract violation and two, why does the current unregulated market for information treat information like property which is contrary to your prediction regarding unregulated markets for information? Until you can answer those two questions you have no logical ground to stand on.
Everything that the market does regarding information is in direct contradiction to your notion that information is not scarce. All scarce things have prices. Information has prices.
Third parties are bound by the rules regarding receiving stolen property. What was stolen was the original owners ability to release the information in their possession as they saw fit. You have no right to take information from me without my permission and give it to others. The third party possession is essentially the fruit of the poisoned tree.