Copyright

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #1452 and its comments.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 7 months ago·#1336

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.

CriticismCriticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 7 months ago·#1339

‘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?

Criticism of #1336
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 7 months ago·#1341

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

Criticism of #1339Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 7 months ago·#1344

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

Criticism of #1341
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 7 months ago·#1346

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.

Criticism of #1344Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 7 months ago·#1347

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

Criticism of #1346
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle revised 10 days ago·#2023
Show idea #1451Show idea #14512nd of 2 versions leading to #1452 (2 total)

Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?

Edit: Dennis points out that copyright infringement is generally not treated as a crime. Perhaps I should have said: “[…] should be considered unlawful,” or “[…] should entitle the original author to seek a court order (e.g., a cease-and-desist) backed by state enforcement.”

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 7 months ago·#1452

No I disagree, for all the reasons I already gave in response to #1346.

Criticism of #2023
Amaro Koberle’s avatar
Amaro Koberle, 10 days ago·#2021

Was there any other reason besides the claim that my argument rests on the “physical” nature of private property? If not, I believe I have already addressed that criticism. I don’t actually think property rests on physicality, but rather on whether something is zero-sum or non-zero-sum, physical or not. A useful concept in this context is “rivalry” in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

Criticism of #1452Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 10 days ago·#2027

See #1421 and the surrounding ideas. #2021 is basically a duplicate of #1421, which (at the time of writing, at least), is a duplicate of #1346.

Criticism of #2021