3 ms·

X has an apple, Y takes it from X (steal), X no longer has an apple. Economic scarcity is inherent in the apple. X has an mp3 file, Y copies it from X (copy),

X has an apple, Y takes it from X (steal), X no longer has an apple. Economic scarcity is inherent in the apple. X has an mp3 file, Y copies it from X (copy), X still has an mp3 file. Economic scarcity is not inherent in the mp3 file, it has to be artificially enforced. Don't know how it can be any clearer than that. Economic scarcity may be inherent in the service of creating the mp3 file, because it consumes time and other physical inputs. The "correct" and most straightforward way to sell services is commissioning - 1 performance, 1 payment. Intellectual property tries to make the output of a service subject to the same attributes as a physical salable object, and the artifice in American law has a specific Constitutional purpose: to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Consider this: Let's say you needed a repair on your house - this is basically a "I want this, let me pay you to do it" commission arrangement. Imagine if you had to continue to pay daily for the "rights" of using the repair. Honestly this is promoting the progress of "useful arts" more than suing kids for downloading mp3 files that they wouldn't pay for anyway.

notahacker 4y ago
X has an orchard. Y walks through the orchard. X still has an orchard, but says "you have to pay me to walk there, it's my orchard". Economic scarcity is not inherent in access to the orchard, but X still argues for the artificial enforcement of exclusive rights over it, and must initiate force against Y in order to extract payment for walking on the land. If you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with using legal systems and implied threat of violence to extract fees for the use of services you have made available to the public, you are basically arguing for the abolition of nearly all of the modern day concept of property, not just IP.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  > Economic scarcity is not inherent in access to the orchard Interesting, but I'll counter and say it is, because there is only so much land. It doesn't matter any way because land cannot be copied like an mp3. Also I cannot trespass upon your mp3 and deprive you of a portion of its use. The only way I can see a parallel to stealing is this: - X pays Y to make you an mp3 in the future. - X makes the mp3. - Y is your friend and shows you the mp3 before it gives it to Y. - You copy it, and sell it to X before Y did at a lower price, or simply give it to X. - Now X doesn't want to pay Y any more. but that's why contracts exist, so that X would have to pay Y anyway. Of course the notion of property itself is an artifice, what makes an apple yours other than the fact you are holding it and no one is actively trying to take it from you--but physical property cannot be copied in the same way "imaginary" property can. > If you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with using legal systems and implied threat of violence to extract fees for the use of services you have made available to the public Not arguing that. I am arguing that using the legal system to punish X for downloading an mp3 might be wrong, because that action has not harmed nor deprived the creator of the mp3 of anything e0xcept vague "might-happen" things that aren't based on explicit contract-like agreements.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Frankly, the sense in which a trespasser deprives landowners of the benefit of land is far less tangible and significant than the sense in which a counterfeiting ring deprives an IP owner of part of an income stream, except in the rare case the trespasser is blockading the entrance or deliberately aggravating guests The point is that property law is based around enforceable exclusivity of rights, not around deprivation of use (and making a copy available for free does deprive copyright owners of some portion of their ability to use it as a revenue stream) and contrary to the suggestion up front both intellectual and physical property involve surveillance and [implied] use of violence in order to turn commons into a scarce resource which can be charged for.

notahacker 4y ago

X has an orchard. Y walks through the orchard. X still has an orchard, but says "you have to pay me to walk there, it's my orchard". Economic scarcity is not inherent in access to the orchard, but X still argues for the artificial enforcement of exclusive rights over it, and must initiate force against Y in order to extract payment for walking on the land. If you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with using legal systems and implied threat of violence to extract fees for the use of services you have made available to the public, you are basically arguing for the abolition of nearly all of the modern day concept of property, not just IP.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago
> Economic scarcity is not inherent in access to the orchard Interesting, but I'll counter and say it is, because there is only so much land. It doesn't matter any way because land cannot be copied like an mp3. Also I cannot trespass upon your mp3 and deprive you of a portion of its use. The only way I can see a parallel to stealing is this: - X pays Y to make you an mp3 in the future. - X makes the mp3. - Y is your friend and shows you the mp3 before it gives it to Y. - You copy it, and sell it to X before Y did at a lower price, or simply give it to X. - Now X doesn't want to pay Y any more. but that's why contracts exist, so that X would have to pay Y anyway. Of course the notion of property itself is an artifice, what makes an apple yours other than the fact you are holding it and no one is actively trying to take it from you--but physical property cannot be copied in the same way "imaginary" property can. > If you are arguing that there is something inherently wrong with using legal systems and implied threat of violence to extract fees for the use of services you have made available to the public Not arguing that. I am arguing that using the legal system to punish X for downloading an mp3 might be wrong, because that action has not harmed nor deprived the creator of the mp3 of anything e0xcept vague "might-happen" things that aren't based on explicit contract-like agreements.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Frankly, the sense in which a trespasser deprives landowners of the benefit of land is far less tangible and significant than the sense in which a counterfeiting ring deprives an IP owner of part of an income stream, except in the rare case the trespasser is blockading the entrance or deliberately aggravating guests The point is that property law is based around enforceable exclusivity of rights, not around deprivation of use (and making a copy available for free does deprive copyright owners of some portion of their ability to use it as a revenue stream) and contrary to the suggestion up front both intellectual and physical property involve surveillance and [implied] use of violence in order to turn commons into a scarce resource which can be charged for.