Search ideas

If current law isn’t based on what you claim it’s based on then that does make it less true.

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.

Superseded by #1350. This comment was generated automatically.

Ridiculous 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.

I do expect innovation to suffer from current copyright infringement, yes. Just add up all the infringed copies being shared times the average price, that’s the damage being done and it discourages creators from creating more.

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.

Superseded by #1333. This comment was generated automatically.

Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation. Without that incentive, many original creators wouldn’t publish their creations in the first place.

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.

Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.