Jun
10
In order to look at the root of, this debate we have to look at the root of property. All Libertarians agree that property rights include rights in tangible resources. These resources include immovable such as land, house, and movables such as chair, table, iphone etc. In addition to that, all Libertarians agree that you have a right to own your body, though they have a dispute on whether the ownership of your body is alienable or inalienable. But that debate is for another day.
As we move from tangible to intangible things, the debate among Libertarians intensifies, for example the issues on right to reputation(like libel and slander), rights against blackmail, although still most Libertarians understand that having property rights in intangible things makes no sense.
Why do we have property rights in the first place? We have property rights in tangible things such as land, house, food etc, because these things are finite in nature. If you have a piece of tangible item, then I cannot have it without devoiding you from having it. If property could be replicated like Information without making a loss to the original person, it would make no sense to have property rights, one loaf of bread made thousands of years ago could continue to feed people today, despite of the fact that someone has to put labor in making that first loaf of bread. Main reason is because it doesn’t devoid the first homesteader to use the property for himself. Sharing that loaf of bread with 100 million lazy people will not cause him go hungry.
You might as well say that wouldn’t that cause a slowing down of the scientific growth, well it may, but one of our bigger needs would be fulfilled that is, feeding more and more number of people. Property rights in such a fictional scenario would be counter-productive, whereas in today’s scenario where property is limited, property rights enable a person who puts his labor in his property to enjoy fruits of his labor.
That means if I take a book from you, you are devoid from the book. If I take your house from you, you are deviod from the usage of that house. But is that the case with intangible products ? Is that the case with a song of Metallica? If you have a song you made, or brought from your own labor, and I copy that song from you, are you devoid from enjoying that song? No! you still keep the intangible product. You can still listen to it.
5 Responses to “Legal or Illegal : Copyright violations”
Leave a Reply
Freesoul Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWhat actually is copyright and its violation-
Consider an education class. The lecturer provides knowledge about a subject, discusses various aspects of it. The students listens, analysis and understands.
Some students are interested in learning, and applying further mind, developing innovating knowledge, they remain attentive in class and provide their individual efforts for the development of subject and related knowledge. They pays their hardwork to it.
Other student who are not interested in learning and don’t want to put any hard work any effort, bunks classes, enjoys porns and videogames and never studies.
It is freedom of individual. If you don’t want to come in class, attend lecturers, learn study and pay your efforts to a subject, then it is your choice. you can surely enjoy your video games and porns. Nothing wrong in that.
But then comes the thesis time.
To provide a note, that this person under this standard education system (Obviously private or public whatever) has completed his effortfull study about a particular subject and has submitted his effortfull theisis analysis under this name.
Every student want it. that who was actually interested in learning and developing more, put up his hardwork, his mind, his intellect, and developed the theisis, and submitted it. He expects good grades and a recognition for his work.
On the other hand, the other students who never wanted to study, who never attended classes, who never applied their efforts and mind to understand and further develop the subject, now even they also want the profit of the Hardworker student who put up their effort in evolving knowledge.
So such theifs and marxists and leftist anarchist like the writer of this post, steals the hardwork of the honest genuinely devoted student. They hacks their effort and submits it on their name.
Like in a written test, some student comes up with their own efforts and studies and writes the paper, while some never learns, never do studies or any hardwork. They makes chits and copies, they cheats in examination room and copies from the hardworking students answersheet to get same marks as that student who did the hardwork.
These anarchists says that there is nothing wrong in cheating, in chitmaking in copying. and since they copied in their answer sheets, hence they should also get same marks as that of the student who really worked hard.
Because according to these anarchists, hardwork has no value, the effort of the innovator, the inventor, the knowledge developer has no value.
They want to legalize the cheating.
What they don’t understand is, if all will be allowed to cheat, why will any single body try to put real effort?
If the hardworker won’t be allowed to get any incentive for his hard work and his hardwork will be forcefully distributed by these anarchists to the other lazy and never working anarchist brothers, then why the hell wil he put any effort?
He will also stop working hard.
It is just similar to http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-story-of-socialism-public-welfare-and-brain-drain.html
Jayel Aheram Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pmcopyfascism \’kä-pē-fa,shi-zəm\ – the belief in a state-granted monopoly on ideas and information utilizing governmental power and coercion in breaching free speech and private property rights, and the forcible suppression of creativity and innovation.
I coined the term in 2006 (in Flickr in one of my first verbal salvos against the whole concept) when I realized that the entire copyright regime is nothing more than a collusion between big business and government. It is detrimental to creativity and innovation.
Stephan Kinsella is the forefront of this libertarian opposition to the misconception that intellectual property is somewhat akin to private property, when it in fact the former subverts the latter.
Open Source, Libertarians and Communists | Reason for Liberty Says:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:32 pm[...] I understand that not all Libertarians reject IP rights, but this article is not another debate about the rationality and morality of copyrights and patents because we have had those debates in past (For copyrights, and Against copyrights arguments). [...]
Reason for Liberty » Blog Archive » Why should you choose Creative Commons over Copyright model for your work? Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm[...] their blog posts, or worse putting “DO NOT COPY” notices on their blogs. Footnotes:Legal or Illegal : Copyright Violations [↩]Violation of Copyrights is illegal [↩]Patent laws:Beneficial or Bane [...]
Self-ownership and consistency with Independence | Reason for Liberty Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm[...] Standard, Privatization of Currency! [↩]Prostitution: Legal or Illegal [↩]Copyrights: Legal or Illegal [...]