--- alypius skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What is your definition of "property"?
> > Mine is: "Anything subject to human control."
>
> What is your definition of "stealing?"
> Mine is: depriving another person of possession of his property.
>
> Copyright violation does not deprive another person either of possession
> or use ("control") of his property.But an author's property includes the income from the property, and copyright violation steals that. If I own bonds and I still possess the bonds but you took the interest on the bonds, would that not be theft? > but this is profit from a temporary legal > monopoly--perhaps an entirely legitimate monopoly from a utilitarian > point of view, but monopoly privileges nonetheless. A copyright does confer a monopoly, but I would not call that a privilege. I have a monopoly on my personality and personhood, but that is my natural right, not a privilege. My writing is an extension of myself, and thus is also not a privilege, but my natural right to my created property. > If GM is not permitted to > have a monopoly on auto manufacturing, thus depriving them of some > opportunities to profit, is this stealing their property? That is a different issue from a patent on something they invented. > Monopolies, such as copyrights and patents, are granted > solely for reasons of superior social utility--namely, to encourage > creative work which might not otherwise be performed. Some would argue that it is also a matter of moral right. To the creator belongs the creation. > But what is the optimum tradeoff between incentives created by granting > these temporary monopolies and removing or reducing the incentives so as > to promote more quickly the spread of innovation and knowledge throughout > society? David Friedman discusses this in "Law's Order". He explains why, quite reasonably, copyright duration is longer and easier than patent duration. > As soon as we ask this question, it becomes possible to > challenge existing copyright or similar laws, which were created purely > for utilitarian reasons, on utilitarian grounds as well as libertarian. Friedman does not challenge these, in that work, as I recall. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
