“If you sell your book, it’s not your book anymore”
That’s why I’m not selling my book. I’m selling you the rights to read it without intent to copy it. It’s not your book.
“how does this follow?”
If you have used my book in order to copy it against the rules set for that property, restitution must be made. For it to be undone, the copy either A)has to be destroyed/erased, or failing that B) the copy is in ownership of the original book owner.
“I responded to that here:”
The rules for using the book are such that if you want to use it to make a copy in your mind, you are allowed to, but the rules don’t allow for you to use after you intended to copy it to another medium. It’s his property, he can define exactly how the book is allowed and not allowed to be used, and to pursue restitution based on any of those rules. Now as soon as you actually do intend to use to book to copy it, use of that book is cut off from you. Do not touch it. Do not request help to touch it. The rules for that book is that nobody who participates in trying to copy it are allowed to touch it. Your a) example is still a legitimate activity, but is impossible due to the fact that you now intend to copy it to another medium. I still have no property right in your mind, and you can write down what ever you remember from the time before you intended to copy it. However you are now unable to use the book in the way that you have a right to use it, and thus would be violating another’s rights if you used it in another way.
"Wait, now I broke into your house and stole your private journal? I’m pretty sure we are talking about you releasing a book publicly and someone else owning the pieces of paper your ideas are printed on.
If you actually read much of Kinsella on IP, you would understand that your giving a really basic and, in my opinion, rather tired and long disproven argument. That it isn’t necessarily “common wisdom” isn’t a valid argument. A whole lot of people participate in file sharing, and a whole lot more (artists/etc.) attempt to use civil law to make more money. All we can say is that people tend to arbitrarily wield power to aggress on others, if they feel it serves themselves and their actions will be viewed as legitimate.
Our actual task though is determining what is legitimate. What you need to do is prove that your stance is compatible with other libertarian grundnorms, or state that you profess whatever other flavour of authoritarianism and we’ll call it a day. Here’s what I want you to show: a clear criteria for the determination of when a copy-“right” expires; whySam’s Book of Poems is valid for copyright but another infinitely repeatable, non-scarce concept or pattern, like that of the letter ‘A’, is not; and again, how this is all compatible with libertarianism."
Again, you are not selling it to them. It’s rent, of a one time payment, for an indefinite amount of time. When you rent a house to someone, you sell them the right to live in the house. You do not sell them the right to demolish the house, paint the house, or any other thing you haven’t sold them the right to do. You might have even demarkated the right to live in the house. They have the right to live in the house without the intent to be arsonists. If they then intend to be arsonists, they are not living in the house under the rights that they have to that house. Whatever. Nobody is bound by contracts. They are bound by how they have given away or traded their property rights to others. Contracts simply spell out how that happened in the first place, as a sort of proof. I don’t need a contract with you in order to stop you from throwing eggs at my house, because I haven’t given you the right to throw eggs at my house. And I don’t need a contract with you in order to stop you from using my book with the intent to copy it because I haven’t given you that right.