Copyright Infringement

So this is it? You're going to retreat to saying "that's just the way it is". Oh well, I guess you've got nothing left. Like I said, I respect property rights so it's your job to convince me that those property rights should be extended to imaginary property. If you can't do so then there's nothing left to discuss. I'm not interested in convincing you of anything because I don't really care. I'm just here to make sure my beliefs are consistent and they seem to be so far.

So, in other words, you are OK with hollywood making the movies hard to copy. You just don't like that is illegal to do so. Correct?

Correct.

What gives them the right to make it harder to copy? Is it because they own it?

What gives song writers the right to put whatever lyrics they want in a song? What gives painters the right to use any colors they want? What gives directors the right to cast whoever they want? Because it's their labor being spent and they can spend it however they want.

So do they own their work product?

I've covered this several times. There are two ways to own property, to claim unowned property or to barter for it. Creation has literally nothing to do with ownership. If I have a field of corn and you harvest my corn, do you own it just because it was your labor that harvested it? No, that's stealing. If I have a block of metal and you create a sword from it do you own the sword? No, that's stealing and damage of property. You only own your work product if you owned whatever the raw materials were used to produce it.

So, who owns the corn if I own the land and rent it to Joe in exchange for a portion of the crop?
Joe provided the labor and the seed. How do I own any of the corn since I didn't provide the seed? How does Joe own any of the corn if he didn't provide the land?

It depends on what the rental agreement states. What's your point exactly?



So you think you should be able to plant seeds on someone else's land and use their soil? I don't think so. If you use my property then I keep the products.

You're clearly on a fishing expedition trying to find some kind of argument since you don't have one planned out.

No, that would be your argument.


No, you don't respect property rights at all, probably because you don't understand property rights. You cling to the absurd notion that either: (1) no one can own anything that is not diminished by copying; or else (2) no one can own anything that is not scarce (two very different arguments, although you can't seem to tell them apart). In the latter, you've confused a necessary condition for the institution of private property with the substantive right to private property. In the former, you're just confused.

In either case, your argument is essentially circular. I've already pointed out how your scarcity argument is circular. Your diminishment argument is similarly circular, and, in its essentials, boils down to this:

"No one can own anything that is not damaged/diminished by copying."
"The original may not be diminished, but the creator's rights in the original are diminished by unauthorized copying."
"But the creator doesn't have any rights in the original."
"Why not?"
"Because no one can own anything that is not damaged/diminished by copying."
And so on and so forth....

That despite the fact that you have never presented a cogent argument for your position that no one can own anything that is not damaged/diminished by copying. The best you can come up with is to say "if I take your car, I've deprived you of it, but if I just copy your artwork, then you still have your artwork -- I haven't deprived you of anything." That ignores the fact that property involves more than just present possession of an item, it also involves the right to use that item. If I own a car, I can not only tell you not to steal it, I can also tell you not to use it. And it doesn't matter that your use of my property may not interfere with my use of that property, I can still tell you not to use it for no other reason than it's my property and I have the right to dictate how and by whom it is used.

You seem to have a vague notion of that with regard to tangible property, but you can't grasp that it might also apply to intangible property. You are OK with landowners being able to tell trespassers to get off their land. You just don't understand that unauthorized copiers of artworks are like trespassers on land -- i.e. they're using the property without permission.

Now, of course it's true that those are different types of usage, but then the law doesn't have much trouble recognizing that different types of property are used in different ways. I use a car by driving it, I use land by performing activities on it, I use a song by singing it, I use a painting by displaying it, etc. So why do the owners of tangible property get to tell people not to use their property, but owners of intangible property can't?

Oh wait, I know the answer to that: it's because no one can own anything that is not damaged/diminished by copying. And round and round we go again in an increasingly futile spiral of circularity.

I own the soil. Joe provided the seed. I didn't plant anything on someone else's land.


Yes, we would have a contract. That contract would be a legal binding agreement. Don't you agree?

Why do you think creators should have rights in what they create?

I agree.

So all contracts are legally binding. If someone doesn't abide by a contract I can sue him, can I not?

Yawn, you're not Socrates. Just say what you're trying to say and assume that I'm going to agree with anything that isn't a point of contention.

Yes, of course. What is your point? Do you have one yet?

Why do you think that? After all, you have no problems with the creators of tangible objects possessing property rights in their creations. So why do you create an exception for the creators of intangible property?

When I buy a piece of software I agree to a contract. That restricts what I can do with the software, doesn't it? I OWN the software but I can't do certain things with it.

Since someone that just copied the software has not agreed to that contract, do you think that gives them more rights than someone that bought the software?

If you DO sign a contract then you ARE legally bound to the terms of a contract.

If you DO NOT sign a contract then you ARE NOT legally bound to the terms of a contract.

It's fairly straightforward.

No, you have a license to use the software.

That's a legal question that hasn't yet been answered.

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202462605257

You certainly can't use the software without having a copy of the software in your possession.