3 ms·
But that's conflating property and intellectual property. If you steal my car, I don't have use of it. If I copy your book, we both have copies. Further weste
by benj111 4y ago
But that's conflating property and intellectual property.
If you steal my car, I don't have use of it. If I copy your book, we both have copies.
Further western law for the past 800 years looked dimly on the rights of women. Should we deny women the vote, just because that's how it's alway been done? Is an argument not required to explain why women shouldn't have the vote?
- tomcam 4y agoThe challenge was against the status quo. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft (Assuming standard copyright. I have released several books under permissive terms myself.) This goes way back to Dickens and Beethoven, who were damaged by piracy, along with many of their contemporaries.
- benj111 4y ago>The challenge was against the status. It is up to such a challenge to provide a compelling reason to change the law. Was that done all the times copyright was retroactively increased? >Anyone with common sense knows that copying my book is theft. Just because we use the same language for ideas as we do for physical things. Doesn't mean they are equivalent. Calling it intellectual property doesn't magically make it property. And it is common sense that copying is theft. Further book copying isn't theft, at least in the UK. Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. If I copy your book I'm not permanently depriving you of it.