Comment by majormajor
12 years ago
I have a hard time seeing the argument that it should be unilateral. An agreement should be between multiple parties, so if you don't agree to what they're offering, you shouldn't take it. Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can." Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones? If you want to take it, you probably see some value in its creation.
Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can."
A free society implies that should be the default, with well justified exceptions. I don't see decent justifications for copyright.
Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones?
The fact that the latter are scarce and rivalrous. Private property is a mechanism to prevent/reduce conflicts. But I'm not opposed to suggestions for alternative mechanisms either.
> Private property is a mechanism to prevent/reduce conflicts.
I don't know that I agree. I'm more inclined to view private property as a mechanism to encourage productive use of land and other scarce resources. And I see creativity/time/inspiration as a scarce resource.