4 ms·
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 thi
by 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 agoThe 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.