I wrote: > If you don't want those to whom you sell copies of your work to make > additional copies induce them to sign a contract in which they agree > not to do so.
Celejar writes: > But property rights are treated as fundamental, even (especially!) in > libertarian thought. And copies are property. Absent a contract in which I agreed not to do so, why should I not be able to create additional copies of copies which are my property? Why should the state create a monopoly in the creation of copies and punish me for doing as I see fit with my property? > I don't need a contract with you to prevent you from stealing my > property, and intellectual property law, IIUC, stipulates that IP is > treated somewhat (although certainly not entirely) like tangible > property. But IP _isn't_ at all like tangible property. It is a bundle of intangible rights created by the state. If I steal your K&R first edition you are deprived of the use of it and therefore injured. If I make an additional copy of of my copy of the book Prentice-Hall is deprived of nothing and injured in no way. Nonetheless, they have (and will retain for more than 100 years) the right to get a court to force me to pay them substantial "damages" should I do so. How is this sort of state-mandated monopoly, explicitly intended to prevent competition, compatible with libertarian values? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obmm1y3o....@thumper.dhh.gt.org
