Copyright Infringement

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

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.

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.

Which has nothing to do with property rights. You're backpedaling.

Like I said, as long as your novel is scarce, you have rights over it. That's the only way property rights exist, based on scarcity. Also, like I said, as long as your novel is scarce, those rights are indistinguishable from the rights over the paper it's written on.

You lose! Good day sir!

I didn't even bother to question the fact that just because you keep it locked away makes it scarce. Since after all, it's not scarce to you. You could make unlimited copies. So it's not scarce at all but I just let you run with that so you could hang yourself by seeing that it doesn't grant you what you want.

No item is scarce to the person who owns it.

So, you think that because I own a car that means that car is no longer scarce? No. Wrong. You don't understand scarcity if you think that. If an item is scarce that means it has a limited supply. You have an unlimited supply of copies of your novel so therefore it's not scarce. My car is still scarce even though I own it. I have a limited supply of that car.

Night Ripper wrote:

So, you think that because I own a car that means that car is no longer scarce? No. Wrong. You don't understand scarcity if you think that. If an item is scarce that means it has a limited supply. You have an unlimited supply of copies of your novel so therefore it's not scarce. My car is still scarce even though I own it. I have a limited supply of that car.

How can an item I own be scarce as to me? If I want a car, and I own a car, then I am not suffering from a scarcity of cars. From a supply-and-demand perspective, my demand for cars and the supply of cars is matched perfectly -- there is, in other words, no unmet demand for cars. How then could it be said that cars are scarce as to me?

How can an item I own be scarce as to me? If I want a car, and I own a car, then I am not suffering from a scarcity of cars. From a supply-and-demand perspective, my demand for cars and the supply of cars is matched perfectly -- there is, in other words, no unmet demand for cars. How then could it be said that cars are scarce as to me?

There are two categories of things, those with a limited supply and those with an unlimited supply. Things with a limited supply are eligible for property rights. Things with an unlimited supply are not eligible for property rights. It doesn't matter who has access to the supply, whether it's just you or everyone. It doesn't matter if you have all you could ever want. If it's limited then property rights apply. If it's unlimited, they don't.

Your move.

Air is probably the most abundant and limitless resource imaginable, but it is quite clear that people can own air.

If you don't believe me, try scuba diving some time.

The fact that you can make limitless numbers of copies of my novel doesn't change the fact that it's still just a single novel.

joefromchicago wrote:

Air is probably the most abundant and limitless resource imaginable, but it is quite clear that people can own air.

Haha, air may seem limitless to you but it's not. The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.148 × 10^18 kg. It's a lot but still has a limit.

Compressed air is far more scarce than air but both are scarce.

The fact that it's a single novel doesn't change the fact that it's not scarce.

Of course there's a limit to the amount of air, but then there's also a limit to the amount of paper, and a limit to the amount of computer memory, and a limit to the amount of anything in which one may fix a work of intellectual creation.

If air is limited, then so are these things, which must mean that intellectual property is just as scarce as air.

It doesn't matter if the medium it can be fixed in is scarce because the art itself isn't scarce. In principle, if there were unlimited medium, so too would be there be unlimited copies. You're trying to transfer the scarcity of the medium to the art but that doesn't work. The scarcity belongs squarely with the medium.

Night Ripper wrote:

It doesn't matter if the medium it can be fixed in is scarce because the art itself isn't scarce. In principle, if there were unlimited medium, so too would be there be unlimited copies. You're trying to transfer the scarcity of the medium to the art but that doesn't work. The scarcity belongs squarely with the medium.

So you do understand the difference between the creation and the medium in which it is fixed. Congratulations, that's a major step forward for you. Unfortunately, though, you're still mixed up about scarcity being a necessary condition for private property rather than the basis for the substantive right. Clearing up that confusion will, I predict, take a lot more work.

You started with the position that scarcity was the basis for property rights, when instead it is just a necessary condition for the institution of private property.

I started reading these posts because of the keywords 'copyright infringement'. Recently a music group "Men At Work" were ordered by a judge to pay out 5% of their royalties from one of their songs to 'Larriken' company simply because a few notes on a flute in one of their songs "Down Under" sounded a bit like a song written decades ago. Well, some people, even the judge, reckon the tunes on the flute sounded very much like a very old song called "Kookaburra". The ironic thing is that no one ever connected the old song "Kookaburra" to the Men At Work's song "Down Under" until it was mentioned on a tv show "Spicks and Specks" many years after it was released.
Until this happened I never really gave much thought to copyright ... I think I know the rules. I understand the concept and why it is necessary to have such laws. What I can't figure out is this... if a new song is written... and just a few notes in that song seem to resemble some notes in another previous song... how can the copyright police attack the composer of the newer song if there was no intent or even knowledge that another song existed in the first place with similar notes.
Sorry, but this latest issue with "Men At Work" vs "Larriken" has really annoyed my sense of justice. In closing I have to mention that initially Larriken wanted 60% of the royalties from the song. I'm glad they never got what they asked for. And hopefully all the new publicity for the song "Down Under" will more than make up for the 5% in royalties that have to be paid to Larriken who bought the copyright to the song for $60,000. (Big sighs)

No, the fact that something is limited is both necessary and sufficient for it have property rights.

The rest of your post is a straw man and not worth responding to.

Air is limited. Ideas are not.

The universe could well be infinite which would mean air is infinite and not limited.

Can you provide evidence that the universe is infinite?