Amaro Koberle
Member since August 2024
Activity
#1380 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoYour perspective on whether she loses anything really doesn’t matter. That’s the same even for cold hard property. If I exchange your tic tacs for $1,000,000 without your consent, you only win, you didn’t lose, but it’s still theft.
agreed
Am I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?
The comment has since been removed.#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
true!
#1339 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago‘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?
Maybe? Kinda? Not sure.
You don't get to use your knife to aggress on others, that much is clear. So perhaps this can be understood as a right of others to do certain things with your property.
#1363 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I can also think of ways this could be misused.
#1363 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I'm not sure, seriously. I'm open to suggestions.
There's lots of things that I think people shouldn't do yet should still be legal.
#1359 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoTake someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
I'm not sure it's a good thing.
#1353 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoIf current law isn’t based on what you claim it’s based on then that does make it less true.
I don't care about current law, there are lots of dumb laws. I care about what's right and why.
#1350 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoRidiculous definition of murder. Classic libertarian thought bending over backwards to reduce everything to property rights. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
No. I don't expect to find it, but that doesn't make it less true. That's how I make sense of the difference between IP and real property.
#1344 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoOne can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).
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.
#1342 · Amaro Koberle, 2 months agoJust that if it was so crucial for innovation then you'd expect innovation to suffer from all the copyright infringement that is going on.
That could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.
#1340 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an 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.
#1339 · Dennis Hackethal, 2 months ago‘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?
Murdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
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.