4 ms·
No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
by pb7 4y ago
No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical.
- SantalBlush 4y agoFor the sake of discussion, we should specify whose definition of property we're using. Are you talking about the US government's definition?
- amelius 4y ago> No. You’re not entitled to other people’s property, intellectual or physical. You conveniently left out the part where the creator effectively shoved the content in my face.
- pb7 4y agoThey didn't shove the content in your face. They made you aware of it so you can decide whether you want to pay for it or not. This is such a dangerous line of thinking. Do you feel entitled to people wearing revealing clothing too? They're also planting an idea in your mind.
- happytoexplain 4y agoThis is over-simplistic. Physical property has the intrinsic concept of having (you have it - now I take and and I have it, and you do not have it). The value is in the having, and the having is mutually exclusive to some degree. Not only that, but the transference of having has a non-negligible expense. Intellectual property does not have this same set of properties to the same degrees, and it is not useful to equate the two implicitly without attempting to account for this obvious and monumentally large difference. What is left is the realm of pure money theory, which certainly has real effects and is worth considering/debating. But it has nothing to do with "that's my property", except in the legal context, which is static at any given point in time and can not be argued (i.e. we can't argue whether it is illegal to distribute IP without permission - it's a fact).