Downloading music from the internet...

[.Ant]

Assumptions, assumptions...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.

I disagree. Why is that necessary? You're just defining your own side of the argument to be true.

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.

That's a problem of capitalism, not necessarily of copyright law.

 

[Yorzhik]

Goose, I thought your avatar before was better. Does this one have some specific meaning?

 

[Goose]

Which avatar? Cable from X-Men? This avatar is just an elder reading the bible.

 

[Eli_Cash]

.Ant:
"The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing."

Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.

Eli_Cash:
I can't think of any non physical things that could be stolen, but physicality is not necessarily a trait of property.

.Ant
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?

Eli_Cash:
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.
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.

.Ant
"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."

But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.

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.

.Ant:
"How did you decide that copyright law is artificial, while property law is not? They are both artificial, like all laws."

No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.

.Ant:
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.

It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law. When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.

Eli_Cash:
The answer is no, because the concept of property requires that it be limited in supply.

.Ant:
"I disagree. Why is that necessary? You're just defining your own side of the argument to be true."

No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.

But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable

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.

.Ant
"That's a problem of capitalism, not necessarily of copyright law."

Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.

 

[iesu]

New poster incoming. :kookoo:

I have two personal viewpoints about this... and I'm really on the fence on this issue anyway, so feel free to bash away at what I'm saying cuz odds are I dunno what I'm talking about.

As a Consumer:

I have a bit of a problem in finding a lot of music that I want. I don't listen to normal music. I listen to Japanese music, and was introduced to it by a friend of mine. Many times I have heard songs that I have been unable to find except by downloading them on the internet.

Another thing is I have bought many japanese albums in support of my favorite artists, but I find that the prices they charge are extremely exorbant by any standards. The importation of the music I listen to bumps up the price amazingly, to the point where many times I CANT purchase all the music I want to since I don't get paid enough to do so. So there is another restriction as well.

My question is what would be the moral thing to do in situations such as these? My instincts sadly tell me I have to give up my hunger for japanese music out of the fear of stealing. Or I can take the exact opposite crazy approach and use all my money to buy the art which i crave instead of eating and paying my bills. Of course I could always move to Japan (something I plan to do after school). But until then... bleh. It really bites.

As an artist myself:

I am in a band, and really consider myself to be an artist. And as an artist the first goal is to express yourself (at least for me). Maybe it is just because I am currently not an established artist, but as I write my music and my novels I am not thinking "express myself... only to the people who will pay me enough to be heard"

Another thing is going into a Barnes and Nobles. I know many people who just pick up a book and read the whole thing over a couple days while sipping coffee without buying it. No one really goes crazy over this, as I suppose books and literary works of art are at a different standard due to libraries (i guess). But its amazing at how free and accessible those works of art are but are not kept a close eye over. I haven't seen many novelists start up 'abolish libraries' or 'down with barnes and nobles for their lack of enforcement'.

But its an interesting thing. I have sat and read parts of books in a bookstore to see if I want to buy it. I have downloaded songs from an album to see if I want to buy it.

Is my 'sampling' really all conditional?

I suppose when u get down to the roots of it on this issue, many artists have their copyrights to just say "if you are downloading this, you are stealing it against my word".

But it always is within the intent. To read a whole book in barnes and nobles just because you don't want to pay for it is basically stealing art. To download a whole album or song just because you don't want to pay for it is stealing art. To browse through a book... to sample music from a 'recommended artist' in hopes of finding new artistic enlightment? I guess the temptation to just 'read it all' or 'keep "sampling" until you have sampled the whole album without deleting it' is too great for us poor humans XD

-Jin

 

[Eli_Cash]

"But it always is within the intent. To read a whole book in barnes and nobles just because you don't want to pay for it is basically stealing art. To download a whole album or song just because you don't want to pay for it is stealing art. To browse through a book... to sample music from a 'recommended artist' in hopes of finding new artistic enlightment? I guess the temptation to just 'read it all' or 'keep "sampling" until you have sampled the whole album without deleting it' is too great for us poor humans XD"

But it's not stealing. Not at all. Reading a book doesn't deprive the author of his ideas. Copying a book doesn't either. Listening to music doesn't deprive the author of his music, nor does copying it.

 

[iesu]

I agree to that line of logic Eli. But I also agree that if the artist copyrighted its work (in music specifically), many times it is basically them saying "copying my music or downloading for free is like stealing it, because it is against our will". Many times... but not all I suppose. The problem is trying to reason out which artist is completely against it. I think all you Metallica fans who download their mp3's should at least be thankful that they help you fully understand you are stealing from them XD.

I see it a lot in music and not so much in situations like books or other art forms, which is probably why this mp3 downloading topic is so big. example: this one japanese band i love and adore is called Janne Da Arc. On their last 4 releases (album/singles) they have started putting burn protection on their CDs so the layman on a computer cant rip off their music to share. Obviously, that implication alone is that downloading their music would be against their will and therefore stealing it. (on a side note, unfortunately it makes my mp3 player unable to read it, because the burn protection thinks i might try to burn it with the way my mp3 player works -_-)

Anyway, you are right in that it doesnt permanently steal the ideas from the author or the feelings/thoughts put into the music. But it is definately stealing if the artist emphatically shows to you it is against his will for you to recieve his work for free.

Once again, as an artist I personally wouldn't see the harm in 'stealing my work', because I would be glad if anyone wanted to see my work with or without paying for it. But I understand the artists that do want their work to be given their monetary justice...

If you agree with what I've been blabbing on about, the problem is mainly with communication. All artists should clearly label their work as "burning/copying is OK, but not recommended" or "Burning and copying is completely prohibited, copy this and you are going to hell you rat bastards." it should be required to have one or the other in super huge sticker format on each album.

or to shorten it, BCO or BCP

-Jin

boo money boo <---- thats my artist speaking.

 

[Eli_Cash]

"I agree to that line of logic Eli. But I also agree that if the artist copyrighted its work (in music specifically), many times it is basically them saying "copying my music or downloading for free is like stealing it, because it is against our will". Many times... but not all I suppose. The problem is trying to reason out which artist is completely against it. I think all you Metallica fans who download their mp3's should at least be thankful that they help you fully understand you are stealing from them XD. "

But you're not stealing from them. That's like if I own a business, and someone else is competeing against me, then I claim they're stealing my profits.

 

[iesu]

'Competing' by going into your 'business' and taking your product from a jar thats clearly labeled "4$ each piece" without paying?

I guess you can blame the music industry for not finding out how to prevent 'copying' of their music (which is crazy considering technology these days). Or for your hypothetical 'business', how to prevent people from lying about putting money next to a jar.

The only way you can consider it not stealing is if it says "4$ each piece if you feel like it. thanks!". And I'm sure many artists feel that way. Others obviously don't.

Again, it kind of contradicts with the 'artist way' in that money is required for you to hear/read their work. But thats the way some artists want it, and if thats the way for the artist you are downloading, then you are stealing.

-Jin

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.

Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.

So it makes an assumption about the difference between ideas and physical property, an assumption I disagree with.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash

Originally posted by .Ant
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.

But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.

You obviously don't know much about the law. There are many contracts which are sealed without signatures, but instead by a certain action signifying agreement.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.

The following point counters all of the above:

Actually, property laws do make something property. There are many cultures where individual property is not a concept - everything is shared by the society. Property exists only through the law.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.

Sure, but you've adjusted your definition of stealing and property to fit. If nothing you had was called property, I could take what I like without stealing.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable

I could just as easily say "I would like to see you try to show how material things can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are."

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.

Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

 

[Eli_Cash]

.Ant:
The assumption that copying is not stealing is no better than the assumption that it is stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Actually it is better, because it recognizes the very real difference between ideas and physical property. You are trying to show that copyright violation is stealing, and to do that you have assumed it is. This is circular. I have already shown that copyright violation is not stealing, and this article was merely further evidence that copyright law is in itself wrong. Your argument is circular, my argument, and the argument of the article in question, is not.

.Ant:
"So it makes an assumption about the difference between ideas and physical property, an assumption I disagree with."

It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.

.Ant:
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.

Eli_Cash:
But copyright laws make that contract a set of implied terms of use, which is no contract at all, since the consumer doesn't sign anything.

.Ant:
"You obviously don't know much about the law. There are many contracts which are sealed without signatures, but instead by a certain action signifying agreement."

And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied. Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.

Eli_Cash:
No, property laws recognize the reality of a limited supply of something, plus the rights of an individual. Thus we have laws that insure that transfer is willful by both parties. Copywright laws try to artificially create a limited supply, and then apply transfer laws to the artificially limited supply. In short, property laws don't make something property, but intellectual "property" laws do.

Eli_Cash:
It's unnatural because it is forcing society to pay real property for artificial property. Intellectual property doesn't exist, its created by the law.

Eli_Cash:
No I'm not. Property entails the ability to possess something. Ideas cannot be possessed except to the point that you keep them to yourself. and that you have a right to do. But once that idea is spoken or published, it becomes public domain, naturally. The idea of intellectual "property" has only existed for a few hundred years, whereas real property has existed for all of history. Thus when you call something property you are expressing an analogy to what we have called property for all of history. And this is how we can know that ideas are not property, because they are not analogous to property.

.Ant:
"Actually, property laws do make something property. There are many cultures where individual property is not a concept - everything is shared by the society. Property exists only through the law."

Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.

Eli_Cash:
When the law forces you to pay for something that you can get for free, without stealing it, that is unnatural.

.Ant:
"Sure, but you've adjusted your definition of stealing and property to fit. If nothing you had was called property, I could take what I like without stealing."

No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.

Eli_Cash
But I would like to see you try to show how ideas can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are. Even when you try to demonstate it through arguments, you still assume that ideas are property in the premises. Thus they are circular, and don't demonstrate anything but your unreasonable

.Ant:
"I could just as easily say "I would like to see you try to show how material things can be property. That you still haven't done, you've simply claimed they are.""

But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.

Eli_Cash:
Capitalism is the ideal of a free market. Monopolies run counter to this ideal. When there is a monopoly it can be assumed that something is not on the up and up. Copyrights create monopolies. Copyrights run contrary to a free market.

.Ant:
"Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?"
Never said that it did. You claimed that monopolies are a problem of capitalism. They aren't. But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?

But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an ide when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?

 

[Eli_Cash]

"'Competing' by going into your 'business' and taking your product from a jar thats clearly labeled "4$ each piece" without paying?"

That's stealing. When you take a product from a jar, that jar has one less item in it. When you copy something, that's not the case.

And it doesn't really matter if the artist feels they aren't being compensated what they should be. They are free to quit producing their art.

 

[iesu]

The artist within me agrees ^-^

The Consumer doesnt :devil:

-Jin

 

[Eli_Cash]

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the consumer in you would rather pay for art?

 

[iesu]

I guess as a capitalist/consumer I would rather have all art paid for since when I am in a capitalist/consumer mindframe it is all about putting things at dollar value so I know what is needed to obtain said art.

If that makes sense good... if not then I don't understand what I was talking about myself.

Lets just leave it at I understand your way of thinking and understand the opposite opinion as well. Which is why in my first post I stated I was very much on the fence on this topic.

-Jin

 

[Eli_Cash]

"I guess as a capitalist/consumer I would rather have all art paid for since when I am in a capitalist/consumer mindframe it is all about putting things at dollar value so I know what is needed to obtain said art."

But copyright law contradicts capitalism, because it runs contrary to a free market.

 

[iesu]

Explain how it runs contrary to free market.

The basic definition of capitalism states that the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned. So... if the said artist wanted to produce the music and distribute them only for a price without copying it against their will... then wouldnt they copyright it?

-Jin

edited: keep in mind i also stated that if my last post didnt make sense then I probably didn't know what I was talking about myself. you could have merely said "that doesn't make sense" and I would have just nodded and then went :hammer: to prove my point.

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.

I recognise that fact, but I disagree with your thinking that just because something can be easily replicated, it should not be owned.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied.

Yes, expressed how? Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights).

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.

It should be obvious that I'm not saying that, from my comment

Originally posted by .Ant
Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?

They don't. I am arguing that (well-defined) intellectual property rights are just as valid as property rights.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an ide when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?

I don't agree with the way patents are used - a related but distinct issue. Again, what is stealing about insisting that people pay you to buy your art (in digital form, so as not to confuse the issue)?

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.

I'm not talking about communism or hierarchies, but culture. For instance, in my country's native culture, land cannot be owned. As for pecking order - so what? In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy. The point is, individual property ownership isn't a "natural" right, it is a right created and enforced by law, like intellectual ownership.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.

Yes. Cultural relativism, in this case the fact that physical things are not property in every culture, shows that property is not a "natural" concept, but an artificial one.

Originally posted by Eli_Cash
But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.

No! Are you blind to your own culture? The idea that material things can only be possesed by one person at a time is not a global, omni-applicable concept. What basis do you have for thinking that property ownership is more natural a right than intellectual ownership? It's obviously easier to enfore property ownership, but that doesn't make it more natural.

 

[Yorzhik]

.Ant, first I'd like to thank you for conceding this part of the discussion with this statement:

In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy.

You can stop talking about it now.

On to other things.

Even if several people have responsibility over any physical thing at one time, there can be only one of that thing. That is not the same as every idea, which several people can have at the same time - even everybody - there is no limit.

It only means that physical things have different properties than ideas. One of the consequences in reality is that physical things are scarce (as an economist defines the word). If you don't understand how "scarce" is defined by an economist, please look it up or ask an economist.

If you think copyrights are expressed agreements, then how on earth do you define an implied agreement?

 

[Eli_Cash]

Eli_Cash:
It doesn't make an assumption, it recognizes a fact that you are cosistently ignoring. Ideas have the property of unlimited replication. Property does not.

.Ant:
"I recognise that fact, but I disagree with your thinking that just because something can be easily replicated, it should not be owned."

And you have yet to justify that position. The burden of proof is on you. I have given you solid reasons why the concept of property does not apply to ideas, and you have yet to explain why it does.

Eli_Cash:
And you obviously don't know much about contracts. A contract is an expressed agreement, not implied.

.Ant:
"Yes, expressed how?"

By signing, or by verbal agreement in the presence of a witness.

.Ant:
"Installation of a software program, or purchase of an item, is an expressed agreement, by law. Even a single use of information can be an expressed agreement, through licenses (not copyrights)."

No its not. It's implied, because the law does not require that I sign anything or give any expression of my consent. Laws cannot change the definitions of expressed and implied, no matter how they are worded.

Eli_Cash:
Lawmakers may try to redefine this, just as they try to define ideas as property, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. You're basically advocating a form of subjectivism where morality is defined by human law. In such a case, communism, facism, naziism, are all ok, and in fact, to disagree with those ideologies when you live in such a country would be immoral.

.Ant:
"It should be obvious that I'm not saying that, from my comment"

Actually its obvious that you are saying that. You just don't want to take your reasoning far enough to approve of these ideologies, but that is the natural conclusion. You said yourself that property is created by law. If that's the case, then stealing doesn't exist outside of law.

.Ant:
Maybe. But so what - since when did capitalism define morality?

Eli_Cash:
But I ask you, since when do legislators define morality?

.Ant:
"They don't. I am arguing that (well-defined) intellectual property rights are just as valid as property rights."

Thus you are arguing that legislation defines morality.

Eli_Cash:
But the fact of the matter is that ideas can be stolen. That's right. It happens all the time. Ideas, once produced belong to the public. People steal an idea when they try to copyright it, or patent it. Copyright holders are thieves. So, since copyrighting is obviously stealing, shouldn't it be outlawed?

.Ant:
"I don't agree with the way patents are used - a related but distinct issue. Again, what is stealing about insisting that people pay you to buy your art (in digital form, so as not to confuse the issue)?"

Because as soon as you create that art, it no longer belongs to you. You may own the canvas that its on, but the act of expressing art is the act of placing it inthe public domain. People who try to take something that is naturally common, and own it, are stealing.

Eli_Cash:
Fraid not. There is still a hierarchy of who decides what is done with such property. What you have there is a replacement of individual freedom and ownership with a pecking order. Property exists through freedom. The opposite is communism. If you want to advoacte communism, that's fine, but I'm not going to argue about that in this thread.

.Ant:
I'm not talking about communism or hierarchies, but culture. For instance, in my country's native culture, land cannot be owned. As for pecking order - so what? In any system / society there is a pecking order, even in anarchy. The point is, individual property ownership isn't a "natural" right, it is a right created and enforced by law, like intellectual ownership.

In a "non ownership" culture someone still owns property. Its just that all the property is owned by one inividual or group who controls how it may be used. Some cultures don't like to admit that anyone owns anything. We call them communists.

Eli_Cash:
No you couldn't, because you would be depriving me of something without compensation. That is stealing. Property is property, however you want to define it. You can't claim that something isn't property when it is, nor can you claim that something is property when it isn't. Physical things are property. Ideas are not. You're once again relying on cultural relativism.

.Ant:
"Yes. Cultural relativism, in this case the fact that physical things are not property in every culture, shows that property is not a "natural" concept, but an artificial one."

No it shows that some cultures are based on lies, like the idea that things are not owned. Somebody owns everything, because somebody dictates how every piece of property is used. Some cultures don't like to admit this, but there is no way around it. But I'm glad you admit that you are a cultural relativist. Now take it to the next step and admit it was alright to be a Nazi in WW2 era germany.

Eli_Cash:
But I have. Material things can only be possesed by one person at a time. Thus ownership is a concept that naturally applies to material possessions. The laws exist to ensure just transferr of ownership. In the case of ideas, the concept of ownership does not naturally apply. It requires a law to apply this concept to ideas, then a law to enforce it.

.Ant:
"No! Are you blind to your own culture? The idea that material things can only be possesed by one person at a time is not a global, omni-applicable concept. What basis do you have for thinking that property ownership is more natural a right than intellectual ownership? It's obviously easier to enfore property ownership, but that doesn't make it more natural."

Somebody always has a final say-so about any physical peice of property. This is a natural fact. You cannot get around it.