How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD?
Lets make it even more clear, lets say I start a cover band and cover a bunch of songs, burn a CD, and sell the CDs at the club after my performance. Does it matter how much improvisation and originality I put into the covers?
There is no electrical energy in a CD.
Please, for the love of Rothbard, everyone consult a physicist before making absurd claims!
Everyone has been sissified.
Hamlet: How now! a rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!
Polonius: Oh, I am slain!
Well, it is obvious that you have already consulted the physicist and are, therefore, making absurd claims.
True.
Why a physicist, though? Isn’t the question of what is and isn’t information a matter of philosophy? I understand quantum physics beyond an elementary level, and I’ve studied some of the basic ideas regarding epistemology. I’d have to say this is in the realm of philosophy.
Alright, lets get stupidly technical for no reason so we can get to the bottom of your insanity. Singing causes a pattern of vibrations in the air, and the CD is a pattern of impressions on a disc. So we are talking about owning patterns correct? So if I cover a band it does not violate their IP because the CD and vibrations due to singing are not configured in the same pattern. And if I make my own version of warcraft 3 and start selling it and running a private server it is alright so long as the pattern of the source code is different (I add some things and switch it around).
Mr. Giant brings ups a good question: why a physicist? Why not an electrical engineer or Tim the electrician?
Because Stranger is backed into a corner and as such can only presents strawmen to defend himself with. He does this on virtually every thread where there is a hint of discussion on IP. However, whether IP is right or wrong is irrelevant. He’s made up his mind. Might as well save our breath.
CDs aren’t philosophical. They are physical, and copyright applies to physical acts on these physical media.
A philosopher can tell you about the CDness of the CD, he can’t tell you how CDs carry information.
Every anti-IP argument I have shot down, including, but not limited to, the one that says that open source companies can produce IP just as well, the one the says that information isn’t scarce, and the one that says that you can copy if you don’t have a contract with the media owner.
The proof that I have shot them down is that no one is seriously proposing them anymore. The only argument left is to nitpick over what is or is not copying, which implies that now everyone agrees that direct copying is a violation of property.
Is it information if there is no one to infer it as information? Why do we need a physicist to tell us there is information? How come we cannot get a dairy farmer to tell us there is no information there?
That’s the stupidest anti-IP argument I’ve seen so far.
So if a person copies information from a music CD as text, has he stolen music?
lol, indeed.. no-one seriously disagrees that stuff that are logical absurdties can be produced by anyone, whether under lgeal systems embracing IP-fiction or otherwise.
no-one can produce IP because there is no such thing. no one can produce square-circles.
information is not scarce and so is not a candidate for property. end of story. information is not rivalrous.
That makes no sense at all. Consult a physicist.
how are you understanding ‘scarcity’ ? and how do you understand ‘rival’?
And the ironic thing is they’re all saying the same thing about you.
Yes, it does make sense. I don’t need to consult a physicist because I know how CDs work. I understand refraction, the shifting of wavelength caused by the reflection of the laser, and the physical recording medium, the redundancy within the disc to help against degradation, etc…
Bits are carved out on a CD. If those bits are interpreted as ASCII text (8 bits per character) is the person stealing music or text?
I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord’s resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights.
He’s stealing bits. The interpretation is not part of the copying process.