Night Ripper wrote:
Well, I've gotten you to agree that, in some circumstances, you would agree with a copyright law.
That's a copyright contract, which I never disagreed with. The fact you call it a law and then say "aha! you agree with laws!" is a cheap trick and you know it. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more. I have always supported contracts plain and simple.
No, it's not a cheap trick. It's just a logical extension of your argument.
But I can't imagine what point there is in continuing that argument with you. After all, your position is that you don't like copyright laws, and so you don't think you should be bound by them. At that point, it becomes, in effect, an esthetic argument -- in other words, copyright laws displease you, and that's all that's necessary for you or anyone else not to follow them. It really doesn't matter why they displease you, since there's no requirement that your consent can only be withheld on logically defensible grounds. I can't argue with you on a rational basis against your esthetic judgments, so explain to me what's the point in even trying.
Night Ripper wrote:
It's quite simple. You can own your house but you can also enter into a contract that allows ME to limit how YOU can use your own house, what color you can paint it, how tall the grass can get, etc. Does that mean I suddenly own your house just because you entered into a contract with me over it? No.
Indeed. But then I can't enter into a contract that allows you to limit how someone else can use their house. That's my point: I can't control the access to a novel that I don't own. And if I can
control the access to that novel, that means that I have a right
to control that access. That right can't be based on contract, since I don't enter into contracts with myself to create my own works. The right, therefore, must be some kind of a property right. You seem to think there's no such thing as intellectual property, and yet you're willing to recognize the creators' rights to control access of their works to third parties by means of contract. That's an inconsistency. If they have contractual rights in connection with their works, how do they not have property rights in those works?