@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote: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.
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?
Night Ripper wrote: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.
Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?
Night Ripper wrote: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.
It means that you understand the distinction between a
thing and the
right to a thing. Obviously, if a piece of land is more valuable with the right to exclusive possession than it is without that right, then the right itself has some value. Presumably, then, the right itself can also be damaged (anything that has value, after all, can lose value).
Now, moving over to the copyright context: you argue that unauthorized copying doesn't "damage" the creator's property because it doesn't diminish the original. 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.
Your argument, then, that the creator of an artistic work doesn't suffer damage because the original remains intact ignores the fact that the creator's
rights are valuable in themselves and they suffer a good deal of damage due to unauthorized copying.