tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post2519804403622491961..comments2019-05-15T19:42:58.525-07:00Comments on Intellectual Space: Top Stephan Kinsella Supporter Admits Hoax . . . FinallyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-59046142444982556022014-09-24T22:59:00.377-07:002014-09-24T22:59:00.377-07:00I agree with Stephen that you are using "buil...I agree with Stephen that you are using "built into" to imply a fallacy where there is none. That B derives from A does not mean that B is baked into A as a faulty premise. <br />Assuming a premise and accepting its conclusions is not the same as assuming its conclusion.<br /><br /><br />I still don't understand how you can claim rivalry for a song. Can you not sing it at 100% capacity if there is a copier? Can you not make 100% the CDs that you would have absent the copier? <br />Sure those actions would be less profitable, but the copier does not limit your action.<br /><br />Let's consider for a moment your claim that a sale is a use (as opposed to the action of singing, or producing a CD), then it's true that the copier reduces your opportunities to sell. But so does the ice cream seller reduce the opportunities of the soda seller. Would you say that the ice cream seller is trespassing on the soda's seller property because the ice cream seller is reducing his sales (taking customers away and reducing customer demand)?<br />If so, the point has already been addressed in other comments (such as on your recent nutshell post that songs are rivalrous) that you have no right to a sell. You don't own your customers.Julien Couvreurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15158751165174523704noreply@blogger.com