Copyright Infringement

If I take your ideas, you can still use them. I've deprived you of nothing.

I also disagree with intangible property rights because they make claims of control on other people's property.

There are two ways in which one my obtain property, by trading for it or by claiming unowned property.

If you copy my stuff, I still have it, physically, but you took the utility away from me, which, after all, is the point of having property.

The point of having a car is to drive around in the car. The point of having a novel is to read it. How have I deprived you of that utility by copying it? I haven't.

To the author, and original owner, the point may be to sell it.

EmperorNero wrote:

If you copy my stuff, I still have it, physically, but you took the utility away from me, which, after all, is the point of having property.

The point of having a car is to drive around in the car. The point of having a novel is to read it. How have I deprived you of that utility by copying it? I haven't.

Childish hippies may utter that argument, but not you.

The author does not write the novel because he wants to read it, his utility is selling it for money.

EmperorNero wrote:

Childish hippies may utter that argument, but not you.

Immature douches may insult other people, but not you.

EmperorNero wrote:

The author does not write the novel because he wants to read it, his utility is selling it for money.

He can still sell it.

That wasn't meant as an insult. I like your posts. It was meant like "you are better than that", it was a compliment.

Property rights is a right to control something, not the right to derive utility from something. If you would steal someones car at night, drive it around, fill the tank back up and park it where it was, you deprive him of no utility. So would that not deprive him of the property rights of his car?

Which he can still do. Do you think his copy suddenly vanishes and he can no longer sell it just because I made a copy?

Let's say you have a lemonade stand selling lemonade for a dollar and then I open lemonade stand next to yours and start giving it away for free. According to your reasoning, I've deprived you of the utility of selling your lemonade.

You're also begging the question by starting with the presupposition that an artist owns not just his copy but all copies of some bit of artwork.

Let's say you have a lemonade stand selling lemonade for a dollar and then I open lemonade stand next to yours and start giving it away for free. According to your logic, I've deprived you of the utility of selling your lemonade.

You make it less scarce by copying it and thusly diminish its value and the writer's ability to sell it (by establishing the right of anyone to just take it from him instead of buying it).

Good thing I didn't say anything about stealing then, isn't it?

I didn't say that. An artist does not own any copies of artwork, he owns the intangible structure, sort off like a spirit. If you buy a physical copy of the work, on a CD or a book, you own it, but the artist still owns the intangible spirit itself. If you copy the CD, you take away the authors right to control the spirit.

But I didn't say that either, I'm not sure exactly what part of what I actually said you are disagreeing with.

This is where we disagree and I don't see any way of you convincing me to agree with you since the only reason why I allow that physical property is legitimate is because it is scarce.

Night Ripper wrote:

This is where we disagree and I don't see any way of you convincing me to agree with you since the only reason why I allow that physical property is legitimate is because it is scarce.

Immaterial property is scarce as well. We pay for it, so it's per definition scarce.

Well, you say copying intellectual property is a violation of property rights because it diminishes the value of of that intellectual property. But that is not why.