3 ms·

The person in question already has a copy in the scenario we are discussing, so there would be no need for them to buy it anyway. It might be argued that some

The person in question already has a copy in the scenario we are discussing, so there would be no need for them to buy it anyway. It might be argued that some other person who has not yet seen the design might not buy a copy from the copyright holder, but that is speculative. The difference that I don't think is getting through is that a design can be copied from a copy, without affecting the original. If I rent your place, I necessarily displace you. The same is not so with a written design. It can be copied without the copyright holders' notice.

throwanem 10y ago
> The difference that I don't think is getting through is that a design can be copied from a copy, without affecting the original. That's hardly a novel claim here; I acknowledged, discussed, and disposed of it in the argument to which you here reply, and whose tl;dr is more or less that copyability and scarcity are orthogonal. That's the argument I would like to see addressed.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  You are confusing my argument with yours. It is not a matter of scarcity, but of the fact that a copyrighter's property is wholly intact and unaffected by a third party producing a copy of something the third party possesses. The same does not hold under eminent domain seizure.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > You are confusing my argument with yours. I'm contrasting them. I don't argue that the copyright owner's possession of the copied property remains intact. Her rights in that property, I'd argue, do not.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > a copyrighter's property is wholly intact and unaffected by a third party producing a copy of something the third party possesses. A real property owner's parcel remains intact, in the same sense, when an access easement over it is seized by eminent domain, only his right to exclude others from uses -- the essence of the relation known as "property" -- is impacted. The requirement for compensation for takings of real property is not limited to cases where fee simple title to the parcel is taken.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      The real property with an easement is, however, affected when someone accesses it. When someone accesses, or, copies, a copy of a copyrighted work, the owner of the copyright is not affected.

throwanem 10y ago

> The difference that I don't think is getting through is that a design can be copied from a copy, without affecting the original. That's hardly a novel claim here; I acknowledged, discussed, and disposed of it in the argument to which you here reply, and whose tl;dr is more or less that copyability and scarcity are orthogonal. That's the argument I would like to see addressed.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
You are confusing my argument with yours. It is not a matter of scarcity, but of the fact that a copyrighter's property is wholly intact and unaffected by a third party producing a copy of something the third party possesses. The same does not hold under eminent domain seizure.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > You are confusing my argument with yours. I'm contrasting them. I don't argue that the copyright owner's possession of the copied property remains intact. Her rights in that property, I'd argue, do not.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > a copyrighter's property is wholly intact and unaffected by a third party producing a copy of something the third party possesses. A real property owner's parcel remains intact, in the same sense, when an access easement over it is seized by eminent domain, only his right to exclude others from uses -- the essence of the relation known as "property" -- is impacted. The requirement for compensation for takings of real property is not limited to cases where fee simple title to the parcel is taken.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    The real property with an easement is, however, affected when someone accesses it. When someone accesses, or, copies, a copy of a copyrighted work, the owner of the copyright is not affected.