Steven Andrew Stalma asks:
Trespassers may be sued under tort law. How a free society will provide a legal system is a great discussion. But whatever your solution for trespass, that’s the solution.
None of this is in any way unique to intangible property.
------------
Could you explain how force should be used against someone who copies your music?Unauthorized copying is a form a trespass. It’s like sneaking into a factory and using the machines to make widgets for yourself. It’s like “borrowing” someone’s car without permission, then returning it.
Trespassers may be sued under tort law. How a free society will provide a legal system is a great discussion. But whatever your solution for trespass, that’s the solution.
How can there be an objective measure of justice in such a matter?Assessing and enforcing a just remedy is a standard problem in tort law. Money damages is the simplest and most common remedy (you pay him X dollars). There are injunctions (stop doing X), as well as others.
None of this is in any way unique to intangible property.
------------
A good suggestion for an article wood be to refute the points made by Kinsella and his peers on this subject so that one could even discuss whether this is trespass let alone what one can do to deal with it.
Great minds think alike Daniel. See:
https://homesteadip.liberty.me/2014/05/25/the-alleged-case-agains-intellectual-property/
For more, see:
https://homesteadip.liberty.me/
While I disagree with what you say, I apologize for assuming you hadn’t started off with refuting the arguments before laying out the presumption that damages should be paid.
No Alexander, your analogy is wrong and misleading. Unauthorized copying would be buying a widget and using your own factory to make more widgets for yourself.
If you own just a car, you do not have the ability to mass-produce cars cheaply. However, if you own a car AND a car factory, now you can mass-produce cars very cheaply.
If a song file is not a factory, then how did you gain the ability to cheaply mass-produce song copies?
If you own your own song factory, then why did you not have the ability to mass-produce song-copies prior to obtaining the file?
Very clever.
Consider this, if I am using your machines at night, or stealing your car, I would be depriving you of the full 100% use of that thing–regardless of if you knew I was doing it or not.
The above examples are forms of trespass because as the owner, you’re being denied the full use of said things.
What if you come out at night and find your car is missing? And you catch the thief when he returns it?
And what if the factory decides to schedule an early morning shift to come in–and the trespasser is discovered?
In both of these cases–upon being discovered–the party who has been trespassed against would be depriving the property owners of the full 100% use of their thing. Not only that, but it is in effect stealing gasoline and electricity as well. And causing wear on the machines.
Where as with my digital copy of your tracks, you still retain at all times 100% full agency over them.
It does not cost you anything.
And clearly it causes no wear or extra useage to what you have, right?
Once you release digital good into the world, there is nothing you can do stop people from making copies and giving them away.
To argue against this is to say that you could sue someone who sings your songs live.
So my question is this, and if you plan on responding to me, please answer me this one simple question:
If you discovered that I was giving away your audio tracks for free, and I refused to pay you a dime, would you have me locked in jail?
Yes or No. I need to know who I am dealing with here.
In both of these cases–upon being discovered–the party who HAS TRESPASSED would be depriving the property owners of the full 100% use of their thing. Not only that, but it is in effect stealing gasoline and electricity as well. And causing wear on the machines.
Sorry.
And copying causes wear and tear on the song as well (subject of a new article).
Why does Alexander insist on using metaphor? Because his argument would sound absurd if he said what he meant.
I agree with your critics here and in the other article. The arguments don’t hold water. Or rather I should say your metaphors don’t hold water. And the only way the logic works is by using weird metaphors, as Dave noted. For instance “wear and tear” on the song is a nice metaphor that will make people think that the more I share the more the original gets depreciated. Well in that case I shouldn’t re-listen to my fully-paid-for music, lest I trespass against the artist’s property. Heck, I shouldn’t even hum it on the bus. Or for instance the whole “song factory” analysis above. None of that made sense to me. Anyone who has a laptop has a song factory. Maybe not an “original-song factory” but a “copy-song factory”. You imply that having a factory that produces clones of pre-existing goods are illegitimate. What about drug companies that make generics of others’ brand-name drugs? Same thing. You cried out requesting that your detractors have same rules for IP and PP and yet you don’t do it yourself.
“If you want to take it that way (and basing on logic used in your other article and in comments to it), then copying deprives the owner of the full 100% of his own copy. If he sold at least one copy to someone who then shared it, then the sharer is being deprived of the full 100% of THEIR copy (not of the original copy). The original artist who created his copy voluntarily gave up one of his copies in exchange for money.”
Just as . . .
No matter how many bicycle copies are made, there is still only one factory.
Sorry Daniel, but that’s ridiculous. How on earth could you with your laptop produce a song, prior to the composer writing the song?
The ability to mass-produce copies of a song comes into existence AFTER the song is (1) written and (2) recorded.
If someone made a replicator device, like in the Star Trek series, should we ban this device?
Because the classic Star Trek replicator does exactly what my laptop can do to audio files: it creates an exact copy.
So to be consistent with your point of view, would this device infringe upon the first owner’s full usage of the original item that was replicated?