4 ms·

> The only "entitlement" being asserted is literally the right to copy: if I create a book, which is the fruit of my intellectual labor, I then have the right t

by Gormo 15y ago

> The only "entitlement" being asserted is literally the right to copy: if I create a book, which is the fruit of my intellectual labor, I then have the right to exchange or extend or license the right to copy that book on whatever commercial, ideological, or personal terms are mutually agreeable to others, and to copy my book without such an agreement is to violate that right. And how does the right to control the downstream copying of the work emanate from the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor? The point I'm making is that the direct product of your work is the book itself and nothing more; the right to enjoy that product literally cannot be taken away from you. Other people's copying activities do nothing to diminish your ability to enjoy the direct utility value of the book itself - copying can only diminish the potential return available to you from selling your book to others, but you never had a positive right to a market return in the first place. The argument you're making requires that there's already some legal mechanism by which you can restrain others from copying your work. Your reasoning is circular.

philwelch 15y ago
> And how does the right to control the downstream copying of the work emanate from the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor? Because the fruits of my (intellectual) labor are the (intellectual) property of the book itself--the unique arrangement of words and images and so forth. Since I created that arrangement, since that arrangement is the fruit of my labor, by natural law I have property rights to it. Keep in mind, I'm only arguing that such an argument could credibly be made. I'm not committing to the idea that it works out in the long run--part of the problem with the natural law approach is that you get caught in all kinds of logical ruts without any concern for what works, and frankly there's a lot about copyright that doesn't work. > The point I'm making is that the direct product of your work is the book itself and nothing more; the right to enjoy that product literally cannot be taken away from you. Property rights extend beyond private enjoyment. Asked and answered. > Other people's copying activities do nothing to diminish your ability to enjoy the direct utility value of the book itself - copying can only diminish the potential return available to you from selling your book to others, but you never had a positive right to a market return in the first place. I never said there was a "positive right to a market return"; that was the entire point of the house example. Asked and answered. > The argument you're making requires that there's already some legal mechanism by which you can restrain others from copying your work. All property rights require some legal mechanism to be enforceable. Without deeds and titles I couldn't even own my house. Asked and answered. You're just repeating yourself without understanding any of my points.
- Gormo 15y ago
  > Because the fruits of my (intellectual) labor are the (intellectual) property of the book itself--the unique arrangement of words and images and so forth. Since I created that arrangement, since that arrangement is the fruit of my labor, by natural law I have property rights to it. And since it's quite literally impossible for you to be deprived of that particular arrangement of words, images, etc., it's physically impossible for your right to be violated. But you're not claiming just that limited property right; you're saying that you ought to be entitled to restrict others from independently creating their own replica of that arrangement of words, images, etc. which goes far beyond the scope of property rights. > Property rights extend beyond private enjoyment. Asked and answered. Into what other areas, then? I'm construing 'private enjoyment' here as the ability to direct the disposition of the associated property without restraint; but how does this extend to directing the disposition of other people's replicas of your property? How does it apply to inherently intangible and non-rival goods? > I never said there was a "positive right to a market return"; that was the entire point of the house example. The house example was a non-sequitur. In your example, the state seized your house from you and rented it back to you; they took something that was physically owned by you, and imposed their own constraints on its use and disposition. This is a clear violation of your rights. Again, I'm not seeing how it at all compares to other people independently creating a replica of something you own without imposing any constraints on you. The only effect third-party copying can have on you is the alteration of external market conditions, potentially reducing the financial return you can obtain from selling copies of the work yourself; but again, you never had any right to guaranteed financial returns, so no right of yours is actually being violated here. > All property rights require some legal mechanism to be enforceable. Absolutely false. Physical property is inherently tangible and rival, meaning that only a finite number of individuals can control its disposition at any one time; it's therefore impossible for physical property to exist without someone establishing decisive control over it (or it being abandoned, in which case you might say it's not 'property' at all). Now, people may seek to embody the process by which people establish decisive control over physical property in some sort of deliberative or judicial context, in order to reduce the possibility of disruption of their social groups arising from property disputes, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that without such a system, the concept of property would simply not exist. > Without deeds and titles I couldn't even own my house. No. Deeds and titles are post-hoc formalizations that recognize property rights; they aren't the primordial source of property rights.

by Gormo 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago

> And how does the right to control the downstream copying of the work emanate from the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor? Because the fruits of my (intellectual) labor are the (intellectual) property of the book itself--the unique arrangement of words and images and so forth. Since I created that arrangement, since that arrangement is the fruit of my labor, by natural law I have property rights to it. Keep in mind, I'm only arguing that such an argument could credibly be made. I'm not committing to the idea that it works out in the long run--part of the problem with the natural law approach is that you get caught in all kinds of logical ruts without any concern for what works, and frankly there's a lot about copyright that doesn't work. > The point I'm making is that the direct product of your work is the book itself and nothing more; the right to enjoy that product literally cannot be taken away from you. Property rights extend beyond private enjoyment. Asked and answered. > Other people's copying activities do nothing to diminish your ability to enjoy the direct utility value of the book itself - copying can only diminish the potential return available to you from selling your book to others, but you never had a positive right to a market return in the first place. I never said there was a "positive right to a market return"; that was the entire point of the house example. Asked and answered. > The argument you're making requires that there's already some legal mechanism by which you can restrain others from copying your work. All property rights require some legal mechanism to be enforceable. Without deeds and titles I couldn't even own my house. Asked and answered. You're just repeating yourself without understanding any of my points.

Gormo 15y ago
> Because the fruits of my (intellectual) labor are the (intellectual) property of the book itself--the unique arrangement of words and images and so forth. Since I created that arrangement, since that arrangement is the fruit of my labor, by natural law I have property rights to it. And since it's quite literally impossible for you to be deprived of that particular arrangement of words, images, etc., it's physically impossible for your right to be violated. But you're not claiming just that limited property right; you're saying that you ought to be entitled to restrict others from independently creating their own replica of that arrangement of words, images, etc. which goes far beyond the scope of property rights. > Property rights extend beyond private enjoyment. Asked and answered. Into what other areas, then? I'm construing 'private enjoyment' here as the ability to direct the disposition of the associated property without restraint; but how does this extend to directing the disposition of other people's replicas of your property? How does it apply to inherently intangible and non-rival goods? > I never said there was a "positive right to a market return"; that was the entire point of the house example. The house example was a non-sequitur. In your example, the state seized your house from you and rented it back to you; they took something that was physically owned by you, and imposed their own constraints on its use and disposition. This is a clear violation of your rights. Again, I'm not seeing how it at all compares to other people independently creating a replica of something you own without imposing any constraints on you. The only effect third-party copying can have on you is the alteration of external market conditions, potentially reducing the financial return you can obtain from selling copies of the work yourself; but again, you never had any right to guaranteed financial returns, so no right of yours is actually being violated here. > All property rights require some legal mechanism to be enforceable. Absolutely false. Physical property is inherently tangible and rival, meaning that only a finite number of individuals can control its disposition at any one time; it's therefore impossible for physical property to exist without someone establishing decisive control over it (or it being abandoned, in which case you might say it's not 'property' at all). Now, people may seek to embody the process by which people establish decisive control over physical property in some sort of deliberative or judicial context, in order to reduce the possibility of disruption of their social groups arising from property disputes, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that without such a system, the concept of property would simply not exist. > Without deeds and titles I couldn't even own my house. No. Deeds and titles are post-hoc formalizations that recognize property rights; they aren't the primordial source of property rights.