See how you said "on the contrary" that means that you're disagreeing that one owns a thing and not some bundle of rights. So why do you now claim that you didn't say anything about "owning rights"? What is it that you think one owns then if not the thing nor the rights? Could you pick a stance and stick to it?
To suggest, as you do, that ownership and the rights of ownership are distinct is to miss the point entirely, and confirms the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually you are depriving me of the right to profit from my work in creating X.
So do you think workers should not be compensated for their work? Do you consider it theft if you do work for someone and then they don't pay you for that work?
The point remains, when I take X from you I deprive you of X and the rights to X but if I copy X then I'm not depriving you of X nor the rights to X. See how little your red herring has accomplished?
There's no such right. If you steal a block of metal from me and create a sword from it do you have the right to profit from your work? The only rights you have in regards to ownership come from owning something not creating something.
nor I do deprive you of any use of the land
Why do you put a protection system in your software?
joefromchicago wrote:nor I do deprive you of any use of the land
Yes you are. Just because I didn't have any plans for it means nothing at all. The point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. It's like saying that my block of metal that I was just keeping to look at suffers no damage by your taking it and making a sword from it because I wasn't going to use it anyway. But I was using it, to look at, to possess. That's a use you're depriving me of.
I thought you aren't supposed to sidestep the dilemmas posed by hypotheticals. I guess that only applies to some hypotheticals.
it isn't the property that's being diminished, it's the right to the property that's being diminished.
Now, would you be willing to pay the same amount for the right lot as you would for the left?
I didn't sidestep anything.
Like I said, the point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. So just because I don't have any plans doesn't mean you aren't depriving me of something.
That's nonsense and I've told you already before. I'm not diminishing your rights by copying X because you still retain the original X and all the rights that come with it.
joefromchicago wrote:Now, would you be willing to pay the same amount for the right lot as you would for the left?
Obviously not. Now let's see what you think that implies so I can shoot that down as well.
You would using the land in the same way whether I was on it or not, since you weren't using it at all. What makes you think you can "no longer use" the land when I'm squatting on it?
Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?
But a piece of intellectual property that lacks the right to prevent unauthorized copies is like the piece of land that lacks the right to exclusive possession -- it's less valuable than comparable property because it lacks the right. The unauthorized copying, therefore, doesn't damage the original, but it does damage the right by making it worthless.
joefromchicago wrote:You would using the land in the same way whether I was on it or not, since you weren't using it at all. What makes you think you can "no longer use" the land when I'm squatting on it?
I don't have that opportunity even if I'm not planning on taking advantage of it.
joefromchicago wrote:Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?
There's no such right.
That doesn't make any sense.
On the contrary, there is such a right.
I suggest you look up opportunity cost. If I can do X or Y but not both then doing X costs me the opportunity of doing Y. You're costing me opportunity.
I should have been clearer. There's no such right with regards to tangible property. You're talking about intellectual property which is currently being argued over. How do you go from property rights, which I recognize, to talking about intellectual property rights?
No I'm not. In my hypothetical, you didn't plan on doing anything with your property. My squatting on your property, therefore, didn't involve any opportunity costs at all. In order to incur an opportunity cost, you have to forgo an opportunity.
There's no right to make unauthorized copies of tangible property? Are you serious?
parados wrote:Why do you put a protection system in your software?
Why did you use the color blue in your painting? Because you authored it. Because you can.
Also, the fallacy you are using is called an ad hominem. You're saying that I'm wrong because I don't "practice what I preach". Even if that were the case (it's not) that doesn't prove that what I advocate is wrong. That would be like ignoring advice about a healthy diet just because your doctor is overweight.
It doesn't matter what I plan to do. I no longer have that opportunity. What are you trying to prove with this anyways?
I didn't say that. I said that I agree with property rights as far as tangible property. You're trying to use that to somehow claim new rights that cover intellectual property.