Copyright

Showing only ideas leading to #4920.

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.
Amaro Koberle’s avatar

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.

CriticismCriticized1*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘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

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

Criticism of #1339Criticized3*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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

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 #1344Criticized3*
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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

I don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.

Criticism of #1347Criticized3*
Ed Matthews’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions leading to #4920 (3 total)

If you take an idea from me and produce a derivative work you may change the value of my copy.

It need not necessarily be a decrease in value. For example, a novel derivative work created by you may increase purchases of my works. Alternatively, your work may tarnish the brand associated with my work, or even directly compete with me, and reduce my sales.

I may not want to take this risk. I ask you not to take such actions in exchange for me sharing a copy with you (with agreed restrictions). If you accept and breach the agreed restrictions, you have violated our contract.

Criticism of #2017
Ed Matthews’s avatar

Risk adversity is widespread enough that restrictive terms may be implicit.