.Ant
New member
Assumptions, assumptions...
Assumptions, assumptions...
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.
Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader.
Assumptions, assumptions...
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, this argument in no way supports your conclusion, as it assumes the conclusion in the premises. Hence it is circular, and is not a fair argument. But also, as I pointed out, the black market itself is not stealing. It can be supplied by a variety of illegal activities. So your argument really doesn't work on any level.
It was just a rebuttal to the article you posted... the point made in the article was no better, it assumed in a similar fashion.
Let's see. The article showed evidence that the black market was due to price gouging by a monopoly. Thus it is not created by stealing anything. You claimed, without justification, that a black market is stealing.
So, no the article did not assume, and yes, the article made a much better point. You have yet to justify your equivocation of market circumvention with stealing. Stealing is market circumvention, but market circumvention isn't necessarily stealing. Unless you can prove otherwise, your just spouting unjustified opinions.
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.
It is all to do with copyrights. The effect of a copyright is for an automatic contract to come into effect when you purchase / use the copyrighted item, which forbids you from copying the work. So when you pirate, you break your contract.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Originally posted by .Ant
Originally posted by Eli_Cash
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.
How about private or sensitive information? How about a design for a new technology? Or do you think that no-one has the right to privacy of information?
They have the right to enforce their privacy to the extent possible by actual property laws. For instance, you have the right to not show me the book you wrote. And you have the right to make me sign a contract before you let me look at the book, which forbids me from revealing any of the details. This would fall under contract law. It has nothing to do with copyrights, or the question of whether or not copying is stealing.
Sensitive information is basically protected by the same laws that protect ordinary books and music etc - a contract of non-reproduction for the user / reader.
How did you decide that copyright law is artificial, while property law is not? They are both artificial, like all laws. As for "natural rights", what's unnatural about being paid for producing something valuable, or paying to read / listen to something that you enjoy? Copyright law upholds a right as natural as the right not to have your material goods stolen.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Property law is the recognition of a natural right. Copyright law is the creation of an artificial right, which almost invariably leads to the trampling of natural rights.
I disagree. Why is that necessary? You're just defining your own side of the argument to be true.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.
That's a problem of capitalism, not necessarily of copyright law.Originally posted by Eli_Cash
As to how it contradicts a free market, I posted the link to that article that explains it clearly. In short, it creats a situation conducive to the formation of monopolies.