Activity Feed

Ridiculous definition of murder. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.

But digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.

The issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.

Laws (against murder and other crimes) don’t reduce to physical property.

Libertarians often think that the purpose of the law is ONLY to define and enforce property rights. In reality, the purpose of the law is to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life.

It’s true that it would be arbitrary if anyone could just take your property against your will, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only kind of arbitrariness the law should prevent/address.

One can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).

That could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.

Just that if it was so crucial for innovation then you'd expect innovation to suffer from all the copyright infringement that is going on.

Murdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body  in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.

‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?

‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?

All that being said, I think crediting people for inspiration is good form and should be part of common polite behavior.

Copyright is routinely violated without consequences anyway.

To keep someone from copying your work you have to infringe on the private property of that person by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned copying medium to instantiate a certain pattern.

Intellectual property is a contradiction in terms because information isn't scarce the same way that private property necessarily must be.

Another way copyright promotes creativity is that it doesn’t allow creations that aren’t sufficiently creative.

Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation.

People can still publish fan fiction as long as they get the copyright holder’s permission.

This isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to be followed up by multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)

This idea contains at least two claims and one question:

1. Copyright stifles creativity.
2. Fan fiction does not damage creators.
3. “Where is copyright good?”

It’s unwise to submit multiple ideas at once as they each become susceptible to ‘bulk criticism’. That can unduly weaken your own position.

Try submitting the ideas again, separately.

This is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.

I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.

We have found an example where copyright is bad.

Where is copyright good?

Not a lawyer but I believe such fan fiction would be considered a derivative work.

Copyright protects original creators’ exclusive right to create derivative works. So, selling your Star Wars fan fiction without permission from the copyright holders would be copyright infringement.

See this article.