Copyright

Showing only ideas leading to #2022.

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. You may need to scroll sideways.

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.

Criticized1*

Dennis Hackethal·#1339·1y·Criticism

‘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?

Amaro Koberle·#1341·1y·Criticism

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

Criticized3*

Dennis Hackethal·#1344·1y·Criticism

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

Amaro Koberle·#1346·1y·Criticism

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.

Criticized3*Linked to by #1358, #1423, #1444, and 4 more

Dennis Hackethal·#1347·1y·Criticism

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

Amaro Koberle·#1451·1y

Only version leading to #2022 (2 total)·latest

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?

Criticized3*

Dennis Hackethal·#1453·1y·Criticism

Amaro Koberle·#2022·1y

Fair. I don't know much about the laws around this but I'll take your word for it.