If I print 1000 books, all 1000 books are mine. If I sell one book, I have 999 left.
If I print 1000 books, all 1000 books are mine.
If I sell one book, I have 999 left.
The one book that I have sold it is no longer my property. It has become the customer’s property. Now this one book that is no longer my property, it competes against my 999. The customer I have sold to is free to re-sell it or even give it away to friends, family or community for free, and clearly that may subtract a potential sale of my 999. But my customer does not steal from me, he merely competes with me.
Now suppose my customer was to flip through his book and stroke by stroke with a pen, he copied his entire book into a 2nd book. So now my customer has two books. He has the book he bought from me, and he has his copied book. Now do we say that the 2nd book is not his property and that it is my property? No, the 2nd book is still his property. Just because he manufactured it by using a piece of property that he bought from me does not mean I even partly-own his 2nd book. He has full control over the 2nd book just as much as he has full control over the 1st book. If he chooses to spend his own time and money to manufacture a 2nd book so that he can give it to a friend, then he is free to do so, because THAT IS HIS PROPERTY.
I do not even try to pretend that I partly-own his 2nd book because that would be implying that I can restrict my customer’s use of his own property, which is theft. I do not try to confuse my customer into thinking that competing against me is the same as theft, because that itself is the moral equivalent of frauding an old lady off her pension funds.
It does not logically come to pass that if I manufacture a 2nd book using 21st century technology that it is no longer manufacturing books. Manufacturing a book in 14th century is the same as manufacturing a book in 21st century regardless of the technology of the time. Words like theft, piracy, stealing, protection are dishonest words that attempt to confuse the customer into thinking they do not fully own their own property, that someone else does. These attempts are the real theft. These are the words of thieves. Unfortunately their attempts do not work on thinking people. Do you not see it?
See why do copyright monopolists think they can just steal from somebody else’s work? http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/10/why-do-copyright-monopolists-think-they-can-just-steal-somebody-elses-work/
Also see 5 basic misconceptions about the copyright monopoly and sharing of culture. http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/13/five-basic-misconceptions-about-the-copyright-monopoly-and-sharing-of-culture/
Chris Tenarium, and 1 other are discussing. 
Sharing is Liberty 
Crosbie Fitch 7:46 am on March 8, 2013 Permalink |
NB there are (usually) two forms of property here: the paper book (material work) and the novel (intellectual work).
If you sell someone a book, you necessarily sell them the intellectual work within it too.
However, if the book/manuscript is in your private possession, a burglar can steal the intellectual work (by making a copy), even though they haven’t stolen the material work (the paper book).
Intellectual work is property. The state granted monopoly called copyright is not a property right, but an 18th century privilege – despite the fact that so many people like to pretend it makes their words their property even after they have sold them.
Chris Tenarium 10:46 am on April 16, 2013 Permalink |
If someone were to copy the entire works of harry potter, printing 100 copies of those works and selling them or giving them out etc, that is illegal, property and intellectual property are two different things, I can’t justify it in a court of law by saying “Well I copied/improved their work and then used it for my own benefit”, people can pirate until their heart is content but I can’t let someone try and justify piracy.
Aaeru 12:45 am on April 27, 2013 Permalink |
I didnt spell out the point of the article properly.
the point is that any enforcement of your so-called intellectual “property” requires the destruction of real property rights. you can have real property, or you can MODIFY it to make way for IP. u cannot have both at the same time.
houstonlawy3r 6:52 pm on July 26, 2013 Permalink
Interesting point. I was going to also make the comment that the act of copying copyrighted content (“the book”) is what the person with the pen was not allowed to do.
Obviously I have my own feelings on whether it is right or wrong to make a copy of something you have purchased of lawfully acquired, but this is where copyright law differs from many peoples’ sensibilities. With some “fair use” exceptions, the law generally does not allow you to copy someone else’s copyrighted content, even if it is for the purpose of sharing it with your friend so that he can read it to. The law wants you to give YOUR PHYSICAL COPY of the book to your friend; this would be okay. In its essence, you purchased the tangible book; not the rights to the content in it.
As for your comment, you are correct that the PAPER AND THE INK that you used to copy the content is still your personal property. Now obviously there are those who want to alter the laws to take even that away from you, but that is a very different issue than whether you were allowed to make the copy in the first place.
houstonlawy3r 6:54 pm on July 26, 2013 Permalink
And sorry for the misspelling. The “f” and “r” keys are quite close together on this laptop.
“Obviously I have my own feelings on whether it is right or wrong to make a copy of something you have purchased *OR* lawfully acquired, but this is where copyright law differs from many peoples’ sensibilities.”