Copyright Infringement

@Night Ripper,

To the thief, property laws are coercion. So what?

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper, addressing DrewDad, wrote:

Welcome to my ignore list.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

Now you've joined him.

Anyone that wants to have a rational debate is welcome to but if you keep adding nothing to the discussion other than trollish snide remarks you will be ignored. It's quite pathetic that these people show themselves for what they are, emotional and unprincipled clowns.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

lol

Pretty soon, NR's gonna be wondering why nobody is answering his posts....

1 Reply

Alright! Now Night Ripper only has to ignore joefromchicago too. Then he can claim he won the debate because nobody is left to contradict him. Genius!

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Great minds...

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

emotional and unprincipled clowns.

You're the one arguing for the right to rip off other people's works, and we're the unprincipled ones?

Dude, I think you need to take a look in a dictionary.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago 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?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

You own the paper it's written on, not the arrangement of the words written on it. That's what the contract covers. You give me access to that paper and then I am bound by the terms of the agreement.

You can also sign a contract that says "If I continue to live in this house, I will only go to Methodist churches." but that's not a limitation on how you can use the house.

Just because there's a limitation placed on something doesn't mean you own it.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You own the paper it's written on, not the arrangement of the words written on it. That's what the contract covers. You give me access to that paper and then I am bound by the terms of the agreement.

Why would you have any interest in paying to look at blank pieces of paper? If we posit that the value to you of looking at blank pieces of paper is nil, while the value to you of looking at my words on pieces of paper is $10, then it seems clear that it's the arrangement of the words, rather than the paper, that is worth $10. And since the arrangement of words has a value, independent of the medium in which it is fixed, why shouldn't we recognize that there is a property right in that arrangement? After all, we recognize property rights in all sorts of intangible things because they have value.

Night Ripper wrote:

You can also sign a contract that says "If I continue to live in this house, I will only go to Methodist churches." but that's not a limitation on how you can use the house.

Not the way you wrote it. You're not very good at this hypothetical thing, are you.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

After all, we recognize property rights in all sorts of intangible things because they have value.

We recognize property rights because said property is scarce. If there were an infinite supply of identical gold watches surrounding us at all times then the idea of "your gold watch" vs. "my gold watch" would be meaningless.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

We recognize property rights because said property is scarce.

We recognize property rights because things belong to people. The relative scarcity of the thing isn't what creates the property right.

I own some dirt. It's not very valuable, but goddammit, it's mine.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
We recognize property rights because said property is scarce.

We recognize property rights because things belong to people. The relative scarcity of the thing isn't what creates the property right.

I think you're both wrong. We recognize property rights for two reasons: First, they provide an incentive to produce things; second, they're an easy way to decide who gets to use which thing that's produced. Night Ripper is correct in observing that for intellectual valuables, the latter rationale is inappicapple, even perverse. But there's still the first rationale, leaving a limited but substantial role for intellectual property rights to play.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

We recognize property rights because said property is scarce. If there were an infinite supply of identical gold watches surrounding us at all times then the idea of "your gold watch" vs. "my gold watch" would be meaningless.

And there isn't an infinite supply of copies of my one-of-a-kind novel, either. Just because you can conceivably make an infinite supply of copies doesn't mean that my novel isn't scarce, just as the fact that you can conceivably make an infinite supply of copies of a gold watch doesn't mean that the gold watch isn't scarce. Remember, as long as I have the only copy, it's scarce. If we based property rights solely on actual scarcity -- as opposed to potential scarcity -- then I should have a property right in my novel. And if we based property rights on potential scarcity, there wouldn't be many property rights at all, since most chattels can conceivably be infinitely duplicated.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

And there isn't an infinite supply of copies of my one-of-a-kind novel, either.

There is once I violate our contract and make copies of it. Then it's not just a matter of potential.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And there isn't an infinite supply of copies of my one-of-a-kind novel, either.

There is once I violate our contract and make copies of it. Then it's not just a matter of potential.

Maybe so, but then that doesn't change the fact that it was scarce at one time. Since you hold that property rights are based on scarcity, wouldn't I at least have property rights in my one-of-a-kind novel when it was still one-of-a-kind?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Since you hold that property rights are based on scarcity, wouldn't I at least have property rights in my one-of-a-kind novel when it was still one-of-a-kind?

If that were true it wouldn't matter anyways since those property rights would be indistinguishable from the property rights of the paper it's written on. As soon as someone sees it, they can make copies and then it's no longer scarce. What good are intellectual property rights if you have to keep it locked away from everyone? You've weakened your argument so much that this would simply be a Pyrrhic victory.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

If that were true it wouldn't matter anyways since those property rights would be indistinguishable from the property rights of the paper it's written on. As soon as someone sees it, they can make copies and then it's no longer scarce. What good are intellectual property rights if you have to keep it locked away from everyone? You've weakened your argument so much that this would simply be a Pyrrhic victory.

First of all, as I've explained above, it's pretty clear that the property rights in the words are distinguishable from the property rights in the paper. Nobody wants to pay to look at blank pieces of paper.

Secondly, I assume you now concede that I have a property right in my scarce, one-of-a-kind novel, so at least we're getting somewhere. And you're right: there's little point in having property rights in things that must be locked up in order to keep them from being copied into worthlessness. But then that's exactly the problem that copyright laws address. Since I have a property right in my novel, and since, presumably, the world is better off by having novels published and made available to the public than having them locked in a closet, why not have a set of laws that encourages authors to publish their novels by granting them a limited monopoly right in those novels?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

First of all, as I've explained above, it's pretty clear that the property rights in the words are distinguishable from the property rights in the paper. Nobody wants to pay to look at blank pieces of paper.

Nice try but that's a difference in valuation. That's not a difference in the rights you have over that property. I would have to trespass to get at your novel or the paper it's written on. The rights you would have over the novel apply equal to the paper.

joefromchicago wrote:

And you're right: there's little point in having property rights in things that must be locked up in order to keep them from being copied into worthlessness. But then that's exactly the problem that copyright laws address. Since I have a property right in my novel, and since, presumably, the world is better off by having novels published and made available to the public than having them locked in a closet, why not have a set of laws that encourages authors to publish their novels by granting them a limited monopoly right in those novels?

The world isn't better off for two reasons, (1) you're locking people up in rape dungeons or murdering them (2) art has existed long before copyright laws.

Like I said before, if it were the case that the world would be bleak and devoid of any art unless we lock people up in rape dungeons or murdered them, I might consider it for a few moments before rejecting the price as too high.

The moment you acknowledge that great works of art would exist anyways then your argument becomes a complete joke. The world isn't a better place because of it. It's worse. That's why I'm here debating. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Nice try but that's a difference in valuation. That's not a difference in the rights you have over that property. I would have to trespass to get at your novel or the paper it's written on. The rights you would have over the novel apply equal to the paper.

No, that's the difference between a bunch of blank pieces of paper and a novel.

Night Ripper wrote:

The world isn't better off for two reasons, (1) you're locking people up in rape dungeons or murdering them (2) art has existed long before copyright laws.

That's just a policy difference, not a theoretical one. Now that you've conceded that there can be intellectual property rights, the only question left is how far you're willing to take them.

Night Ripper wrote:

The moment you acknowledge that great works of art would exist anyways then your argument becomes a complete joke. The world isn't a better place because of it. It's worse. That's why I'm here debating. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

I imagine that, without copyright laws, there would still be artists creating art -- I never said otherwise. But then that doesn't affect my argument one bit. After all, the fact that artists might still create artworks in the absence of copyright protection doesn't say anything about the existence of a property right in their artworks, it just says something about whether or not it's a good idea to pass copyright laws. The former is a theoretical question, the latter is merely a prudential one. I haven't expressed any opinion on that latter point. Your position, on the other hand, is that there's no such thing as a property right in intellectual creations, based upon your notion that property rights inhere only in things that are scarce. But you've already conceded that there is a right in intellectual property, so I suppose that means that your argument is a complete joke.

1 Reply

Copyright Infringement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know