Copyright Infringement

The problem here is that, while Night Ripper has, up to this point, been clear on what he considers to be the basis for property laws, he hasn't articulated any position on the purpose of property laws. He argues that property laws are based on scarcity, but scarcity doesn't provide a purpose for those laws. In other words, even if tangible things are scarce, there's no reason why those things need to be protected by property laws.

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

But immaterial forms are not abundant, they are as scarce as any physical object.

Again, by copying the immaterial form I'm not depriving anyone of that form. You're just trying to sidestep the issue here namely, that my copying of X doesn't mean there's any less of X. It's not scarce.

Night Ripper, forms are scarce. Why else would we spend millions on creating them? If forms weren't scarce, every single computer programmer, engineer and actor would be out of a job. What's the point of creating something that's abundant?
Forms are not instances! Instances (like a particular mp3 file on your computer) can be copied and are thus abundant. But forms are not abundant, they have to be produced in painstaking labor. That the instances of a form are abundant does not imply that the form is abundant.

Indeed, we never articulated that. The amount of physical stuff in the world adds up to less than we want. Therefore we need some way to figure out who gets what. We could fight over it, or use a lottery, but the preferred system is property rights. That's the justification for property rights. Now we argue whether this only applies to material objects or immaterial forms as well.

You're trying to have it both ways. You claim that the forms are scarce but the instances aren't.

So then how am I depleting the number of forms by creating a new instance?

Night Ripper wrote:

So then how am I depleting the number of forms by creating a new instance?

You don't. Ownership is the right to exclusively control something. By creating a new instance you infringe on the owners right to exclusively control his form.

EmperorNero wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

So then how am I depleting the number of forms by creating a new instance?

You don't. Ownership is the right to exclusively control something. By creating a new instance you infringe on the owners right to exclusively control his form.

But the only reason why we have a need for property rights is because some things can be depleted. Remember what you said earlier, we could fight over it or draw a lottery but property rights are the preferred method. We don't need property rights for things that don't need to be fought over. You can have a copy of X and so can I, no fighting needed.

The instances are abundant, but the forms are scarce.

EmperorNero wrote:

The instances are abundant, but the forms are scarce.

I'm not depleting the forms by creating a new instance am I? So why prevent me from creating new instances?

Because by creating instances you control the form. And property is an exclusive right to control something.

EmperorNero wrote:

Because by creating instances you control the form. And property is an exclusive right to control something.

My patience is wearing thin.

I'm asking why property rights should apply to intangible property when I'm not depleting anything by making copies. You're begging the question by saying "property rights are exclusive rights to control something". That doesn't explain why property rights should apply in the first place.

You couldn't sell them and if you can't sell something there is no point in producing it.

EmperorNero wrote:

You couldn't sell them and if you can't sell something there is no point in producing it.

If that were true then there would be no works of art before copyright laws and there would be no works of art that cost nothing. Yet, that's not the case. Look at all the works of art before copyright laws and look at all the free works of art now. You mentioned software so the best example I can give would be BSD-licensed software such as Unix and many other programs used on millions of computers. We don't need copyright laws to assure that there will be an incentive to produce works of art.

The argument you are making here was the same argument that people on the left made when rejecting private ownership of material property; we don't need property rights to give people an incentive to work.

Which is irrelevant since the reason I recognize tangible property rights is because tangible property is scarce, regardless of how much production would occur otherwise.

EmperorNero wrote:

The argument you are making here was the same argument that people on the left made when rejecting private ownership of material property; we don't need property rights to give people an incentive to work.

Which is irrelevant since the reason I recognize tangible property rights is because tangible property is scarce, regardless of how much production would occur otherwise.

Why don't you think there should be legal protection for intangibles again?

You do believe there should be legal protection for tangibles, right? Like, say, my car. If someone steals my car, shouldn't that be illegal?

What do you mean tangible property is scarce?

Think of it as the difference between theft and copyright infringement. If I steal a CD from a store, they can't sell that CD anymore. I'm depleting the supplies of that CD. If I download a copy of that CD in MP3 format, nothing is depleted.

If there is a limited number of X, it's scarce. If there is an unlimited number of X, it's not scarce.

If there is a limited number of X, it's scarce. If there is an unlimited number of X, it's not scarce.

Indeed, we never articulated that. The amount of physical stuff in the world adds up to less than we want. Therefore we need some way to figure out who gets what.

The amount of physical stuff in the world adds up to less than we want.

EmperorNero wrote:

Indeed, we never articulated that. The amount of physical stuff in the world adds up to less than we want. Therefore we need some way to figure out who gets what.

It's not simply about ownership. Property laws also tell us who gets to use what.

EmperorNero wrote:

The amount of physical stuff in the world adds up to less than we want.

I don't understand your distinction from physical stuff. Copyrights apply to information. How is information not "physical stuff"? It's the inverse of entropy, and entropy is a physical property just as weight, energy, volume, time, or any other physical property you care to mention.