But as you may well know, if you spend any time in GD, “debates” can morph to include related topics. That’s what I was asking you about—I was not specifically talking about file sharing. You want to make my answer “fit” to be about file sharing, and file sharing alone? That’s your deal, dude. All I wanted to know if whether or not an artist is morally entitled to profits from their work. And I guess that answer is a “negatory” from you. (Scary.) But as to why you think an artist is not morally entitled to the profits from their work—I have no idea what your explanation is for that.
And I might add, while it is not strictly immoral to pay teachers shit wages so that no one wants to be a teacher anymore, it’s a pretty crappy thing to do. All it does is diminish the amount of people who want to (or can afford to) become teachers. And same goes for artists and creative people.
Devalue their work enough, they won’t be able to afford to do it, nor will they want to do work for an ungrateful and greedy public who thinks their work is not worth shit (at least in the monetary context). You can’t get blood from a turnip, and I daresay that if things go the way that you’d prefer them to go, a lot of artists would be rather turnip-like.
Very clever evasive manuever there. :rolleyes:
I already told you, your “questions” are incomprehensible. I am not answering them (whatever the hell they mean) because I am refusing to, it’s just that you’re not making a hell of a lot of sense. Some of your analogies, for instance, are bizarre.
Besides, it appears to me that others have already addressed the “competetion” element to your question about the coffee shops. I don’t know what other kind of answer you want, unless when you state, “you didn’t answer my question” your really mean, “you didn’t give the ONLY answer I am prepared to acknowledge.” Is that it?
So, it “looks” to me (or the “meaning” I’m getting) from you is that you’d prefer to dodge others’ questions rather than explain your own (sometimes incomprehensible) questions.
And if he doesn’t understand, what does that prove exactly? This is just a variation on the argumentum ad populum. If lots of people believe something is theft then it must be theft. Blue Dragon that is a logical fallacy and it has no place in a debate.
I never made any such assumptions. In fact I have been arguing vehemently against both of them. This is a logical fallacy called a straw man. You have msirepresented my position so that it is easier to attack.
For the second time, yes.
I can’t see it because you have totally failed to explain why it is morally wrong to go against the wishes of the artist who created it? The fact that you have repeated the assertion that it is morally wrong numerus times does not make the assertion correct. By even saying “I’ve stated it numerous times, it should be understandable” you are utilising an Argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#nauseam). That’s another logical fallacy.
Yes that is why I asked. Can you answer?
This is the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting). I do not need to explain why something is moral. Something is moral by default unless you can show why it is immoral. I can’t show why homosexuality is moral either, but that does not make it immoral. It’s moral simply because it can not be shown to be immoral.
The logical fallacy of argument form assertion. Asserting yet again that You can steal the properties of the work without physical possession does not make it so. You have totally failed to establish how this can be so despite being asked numerous times.
Yes. The law changed and the ownership was transferred from your posession.
In both instances the artist has made an effort to gain legal possession of something. That is the equivalence. The question I asked you is whether an artist making an effort to gain legal possession of something also makes that possession morally tenable. Can you please answer?
Blue Dragon your post is essentially one big logical fallacy from beginning to end. There is no logic in there and no coherent argument.
I was responding to something you said about legalities.
The state of the law is not completly divorced from morality just yet. The law, especially as it has existed for a long time, can give a historical perspective on what others think of the morallity of copyrights.
I realize that a thing can be imoral and legal, and that another thing could be moral and illegal. But it does not follow that no laws were ever based on morals.
Morals can be arranged in a hirarchy. That is some things are more important morally than others. Additionally, as you have pointed out, law and morals are not equivilant. Specifically individual laws may reflect morality to varying degrees of acuracy. Therefore it is possible to believe that breaking one law is imoral while breaking another is not. I point this out to suggest that I can believe that violating copyrights is imoral whilst going 1 mph above the speed limit is not without contradictions.
No, you have the power to violate copyright. Saying that you have the power to ignore it suggests that you have the power to get away with it. The truth is people simply don’t get caught.
I think I should clarify my position.
I believe that Intellectual Property is a valid concept and that it is deserving of state protection. I agree that it does not have the same characteristics as physical property. Therefore any protections will not be identical to those given to the ownership of physical property. Specifically, ownership of intellectual property should have a reasonable time limit and we must come to some sort of consensus as to exactly what constitutes intellectual property and what does not. In addition, we have to reach some sort of consensus as to how to protect this type of property during that time period.
The problem presented by downloading copyrighted music is a legal or technological one rather than a moral one. It is ludicrous for the music industry to have the power they now have to control their own works. And it is beyond farcical the way congress repetitavely increases the copyright length. However, I think it is just as silly (and imoral for that matter) the way many people rationalize stealing copyrighted material.
Ah, Daisy Cutter, I see his “evasive tactics” are being done on you too.
It also appears that I am not the only one that is having trouble “undestanding” Blakes questions.
So, let’s say that Daisy Cutter is able to selectively wipe out portions of your hard drive that contain her music, and other pieces of music that you did not pay for (and that the artist specifically wishes you to pay for, rather than download for free).
So, Daisy Cutter is found guilty of wiping your hard drive of those files, and those files alone.
How much should she reimburse you for? How much were those files worth to you?
Still no answers from Yosemitebabe.
Apparently she finds questions like these incomprehensible
That is incomprehensible despite being an almost exact copy of the question she asked me.
Gee, I wonder if anyone is fooled by this refusal to answer on the grounds of being to dumb to understand? After all she’s just a girl, and big words are hard (giggle).
Oh, so if I don’t pick one of these canned answers, then I haven’t “answered” at all?
My answer was, if memory serves, that each entity is morally entitled to the profits that their shops bring in. If a fair competition from another shop selling similar products (that they created themselves) is causing one of the companies to fall behind, there’s nothing immoral about that. Of course, in the case of coffee shops, they both have to provide their own original “content” (coffee and supplies) and they are not dependent on the “content” of someone else (someone else’s coffee) to open their shop or sell their product. Also, these coffee shops both must and do sell “physical content” (coffee). So if you are trying to compare them to the concept of intellectual “content” (which is not physical), it falls woefully short.
Were these sexist, snide bullshit comments absolutely necessary, especially in GD? Why should any of us females put up with this kind of bullshit from you? There are no smileys or “IT WAS A JOKE” disclaimers here, so I guess we are to believe that you want to be insultingly sexist.
Blake, congratulations on your grasp of logical fallacies. You have a unique ability to quote them.
I think you may have misunderstood some of what I was trying to say, and perhaps some of that was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying.
The problem with this is that you say “for whatever reason”. That is not true, as I’m sure you know. There could be several reasons why a carpenter is not able to profit from a staircase he built. It does not follow that he has no remedy for any of them.
I agree that having a right is not equivalent to an ability. I don’t think my argument suggested that. Quite the contrary, I was suggesting that interferance with someones ability to reap a profit from his own work is imoral. So yes, there is a moral dimension to my argument.
Not at all. If I am only there when you are not and use my own raw materials, then I am not “depriving” you of any physical property. However, I am violating your property rights. I am trying to get you to back off of the odd notion that only depriving someone of physical property can violate property rights.
I was not “quoting” you. I was trying to paraphrasing you. If I went too far, perhaps you can expound on your point. It was about “no right to monoppolize what they create”.
Right. But this is the legal reason why you profit from your labor. He made an agreement to pay you because that is the only way to get the work. What I am asking is :
if as you say it is imoral to “monopolise” intellectual property, what is your moral basis for asking from money from your boss in the first place?
I understand the legal and technological reasons why he cannot steal your mental work, I would just like to understand your understanding of the moral reasons. Is it really just that you are able to take advantage of the technological reality? If he had the capability to take your ideas and use them directly, would you have a moral problem with it? Or am I misunderstanding your use of “monopolize”.
Not at all. I think you missed the point. There are such things as implied contracts. That is a legal phrase, but it has a moral component.
If I sell my book to you, but I make you sign a contract promising not to copy it, then I think you would agree that you don’t have a moral right to copy it. I am suggesting that the copyright statement in the front is just such an implied contract.
Furthermore, it was not circular reasoning at all. Perhaps you mis refernece the pronoun you. I restated my point above.
Not at all, once again. My appologies if my paragraph was unclear. It was this:
“Intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it. Copyright laws exist to protect this type of property from theft. That is the moral justification. Everything else is understanding the nature of intellectual property.”
Perhaps it should have read thus:
Intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it. That is the moral justification for copyright laws. Everything else we are arguing about is merely about what constitutes intellectual property and what rights an owner has in regards to it.
Thank you for noticing the ambiguity.
Only if you misidentify the moral underpinings of theft. If theft is wrong because if violates property rights, then trespassing is wrong also. You seem to have suggested that deprivation is the only property right that can be violated. But as I re read you posts, perhaps you meant that deprivation is the only action that qualifies as theft. I might agree with this.
I have a few questions. Not specifically for pervert – I just want to use that thought as a jumping off point. This is not abstract for the Kunilou family.
My son is preparing to cut a CD with his original music on it. He’s still shopping around for quotes, but to rent a studio, hire the engineers, etc. will cost more money than he has. Much more.
He intends to borrow this money and pay it back by selling his CD to… well, to anyone who will buy it.
Now, let’s suppose that someone, anyone, buys the CD and then uploads it. Is that moral? After all, that person DID pay for it.
Now, let’s suppose that someone who downloaded the CD hears my son perform in concert and likes it. “Gee I can’t wait for your next CD.”
“Thanks, but I have to pay for this one first? Want to buy a copy?”
“No thanks, I already have it.”
If this happens more than a few times, my son won’t make enough on his first CD to pay back everyone he borrows from, much less make a second CD.
Is this moral? Immoral? Morally neutral?
If your answer is that, yes, that would be immoral – then at what point would it become okay to download his music? When an independent label offers him a distribution contract? When it offers to pay for the studio time and the master recording? When a mega label “discovers” him and signs him to a big advance?
If your answer is that it’s okay, or at least morally neutral, then please tell me what my son (and the people who would lend him money) would get from this entire effort?
If you believe, like pervert, “that it’s ludricrous for the music industry to have the power they now have to control their own works,” at what point should my son not be able to make any more money from his first CD? After a week? A year? If he were to die and the only thing he could leave his family was the rights to his music, would you argue that because he was dead, those rights were now null and void?
And a final question? If you believe that it would be wrong to deprive my poor, struggling independent artist son of the income he could have gotten from his first CD, but it’s not wrong to deprive big label music company, do you bother to check whether the file you’re downloading was originally from an independent record? Do you even care?
I don’t follow this at all. I don’t dispute that there are reasons for unprofitability that are insoluble and some that are readily remedied. I never said or implied otherwise. That however does not however falsify my statement that it is unfortunate if he doesn’t have the ability to make a profit in building stairs for whatever reason. Are you saying that it not unfortunate if a carpenter is unable to make a living from his trade? If you are not then how is the statement untrue.
By this argument then competition is immoral for you to go into competition with me.
Imagine I set up a business mowing lawns. You then set up a business mowing lawns in direct competition with me but mowing lawns at half the price. Beyond any shadow of a doubt that interferes with my ability to reap a profit from my own work. By the standard you apply above such competetion is immoral. Do you believe that it is immoral?
That is not true. As I already pointed out, I no longer have that part of that office that you are occupying. It doesn’t matter whether I am there or not. It is up to the individual to decide how to utilise his own property, and that utilisation can be deciding to leave it unoccupied. I cannot utilise that part of the office which you are occupying in that manner. You have deprived me of the free utilisation of my property. There is one less thing which I can now do with my property, and that is I cannot leave it vacant. You have deprived me of the ability to leave certain sections of my office vacant.
While there may be similarities (there are between most things) there is no similarity in the pertinent area ie deprivation. A such it’s an obvious false analogy
The only possible way that you can establish this is not a false analogy is to contend that either I have no moral right to leave my office vacant, or else argue that you occupying my office somehow does not deprive me of that right. I can’t see any way that you can make either case.
I never said you were quoting me. I asked you to quote where I ever claimed that an entity has no right to its intellectual property. You said that this was my position. It is not and never was. You paraphrased me in a manner which misrepresented me, and that misrepresentation is what you attacked, not my actual position. The misrepresentation was also easier to attack. As such it is a blatant strawman. It doesn’t matter whether it was deliberate, the argument based on that misrepresentation can be ignored.
Umm no. I never had a point. I was simply demonstrating that your argument was a starwman and as such could be ignored.
No, that is also the moral reason why I profit form my labor. I have an agreement with my boss that he pays me for my labour. It would be immoral of him to break that agreement. Duplicity is immoral unless whether is some overriding moral principle. You asked why my boss couldn’t take the idea and not pay me, that is why. It is because he agreed in advance to pay me for producing that idea, and I produced that idea under that contract.
Two logical fallacies in that one.
Firstly I don’t believe I ever said it was immoral to monopolise intellectual property, so this is another strawman.
Secondly I don’t need a moral basis for making money form my boss, so this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Let’s clear this up pervert! Do you agree that one does not need a moral basis for every action? In effect that something is not immoral simply because you can’t show that it has a moral base? Can you show the moral basis of homosexuality? I can’t, and I have never seen anyone else do so. That does not make homosexuality immoral. It remains moral because no one can show it to be immoral.
If you accept hat then I don’t need to prove that taking money from my boss has a moral basis. It is moral by default because it ha snot been shown to be immoral.
Yes, because he would have deceived me into producing those ideas on the false belief that I would be paid. That is duplicitous and hence immoral.
Hmm. I may have to concede this one. It’s a damn good point. I could make a good case that implied contracts are immoral, but that would be another debate. Let me think about it and get back to you, but I think I’m going to have to give you this point.
OK then, until I can think about it some more, we’ll agree that this is true. It is immoral to copy the original work. That does not however cover all subsequent downloads produced without such limits.
While that is no longer circular, it is now a non-sequitur which is still alogical fallacy. It does not follow that because intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it, that the existence of such an entity and ownership right justify anything at all.
To demonstrate this allow me to state my position: Intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it. That is not a moral justification for copyright laws.
Your assertion is no more valid than mine, but because the burden of proof is on you my statement is in fact correct. Yours is a non-sequitur.
That has gone from being a fallacy of composition to a circular argument cum non sequitur. You are now arguing that theft is morally wrong because if violates property rights. That is circular because you are attempting to establish that violation of property rights is morally wrong. You then argue that trespassing violates property rights, therefore trespassing is also wrong. That’s a non sequitur because it does not follow that violation of property rights is wrong in this instance. It may be possible to violate property rights in the case of trespass and not be morally wrong, even if violation of property rights is wrong in the case of theft. Therfore non sequitur.
None of this makes your original assertion any less a fallacy of composition. You were attempting to argue that if theft is wrong because of deprivation of property then trespass could not be wrong because it did not deprive. Such an argument is a fallacy of composition.
I never suggested any such thing. Pervert, would you please stick to quoting me when you post assertions about what I have and have not suggested. That will ensure that you do not post any more strawmen by mistake. Accept that I mean, understand, suggest and imply only what I state in black and white and that there is no hidden meaning. If I have never posted that that deprivation is the only property right that can be violated I see no cause for you to believe that I suggested any such thing.
Well if you can ignore the fact that I think pervert has me nailed on the implied contract bit (and I’m going to) then your son will get nothing. That’s the nature of capitalism. If you undertake a commercial venture there is a chance that you will get no return for your effort. That applies to carpenters just as much as it does to artists. Do you believe makes capitalism immoral.
No, of course not. You are concentrating on the trivial part of my paragraph again. I was not trying to imply that you were unsympathetic. As you well know.
I was only suggesting, as you agreed, that some reasons for unprofitability are soluble. I suggested this because it might (I’m only saying might at this point) lead us to the idea that he might have moral reasons to rely on the state supporting his right to profit.
No. I am sorry if I implied that ALL interference is immoral. I usually am careful to avoid all incompassing terms. I should have said that forms of interference other than theft can be considered immoral.
But this is exactly my point. Your rights as property owner extend beyond the right to remain owner of the property. You have a right to allow or deny others to use it. That is the similarity between your factory and music I was talking about.
I think, maybe, I found a third way
My only reason for pointing out good intentions (not that I’m admitting all my intentions were inocent ) was to offer to show that I did not understand your position.
I took your phrase (from one of the first 10 or 20 posts
“I sais that EMI has no right to monopolise what they create, not that they have no right to own it”
especially in the context of intellectual vs. physical property ownership rights, as indicating that you believed owners had no (or very few) rights of disposition of their property. Perhaps you were only saying that EMI should not be able to limit sales indefinately? I’m not sure anymore.
You don’t appear as rabid as you did earlier
Can you expound on what you think the rights of a creater of a work are? How you think those rights should be limited?
Right. I agree that you have a moral right to enforce agreements. However, my question had to do with wether or not you had a right to make the agreement at all. I think that you might agree that you did not have the right to agree to take money from you boss for your friends work (without the friends agreement of course). And I was drawing a link between that (profiting from labor not your own) and the idea that you cannot “monopolize” your own ideas.
No. If I am reading you right, then you are asking something like “Do you agree that everything is moral unless it is shown to be immoral?”. Feel free to correct this characterization. It is an honest attempt to rephrase you question so that I understand it (without the double negative for instance).
I believe that all choices are either moral or immoral. Some choices can be more moral or more immoral than others. Whether or not we know the difference is not relevant. That is, simply because I cannot demonstrate immorality does not imply morality.
I may not be smart enough. :smack:
I certainly can’t take full credit for it This site has some interesting historical background on the subject.
I agree. We could argue about the morallity of implied contracts. Especially in the context of this thread. What if I bought a CD a couple years ago with a copyright old enough that it was about to expire. I did so with the expectation that I would be able to use the works on the CD in some way. Congress changes the law and makes it retroactive, AND does not require the owner of the copyright to take any action to extend his copyright. It might be argued that congress interfered with my right to use the material in question.
Unfortunately, I think this was the gist of a case before the Supreme Court recently. They decided that Congress indeed had that power, and that I have no recourse whatsoever short of lobbying Congress.
We may part again on this. If it is immoral for you to copy the work, it is certainly immoral for someone else to help you do it. If I sell one copy to you and a second copy to “tom”, and next week an entire copy of the book, word for word, is on the net, then I can assume that one of you violated your contract. Or put another way “How do the “subsequent downloads” get there.”
Now, please don’t assume that I have accidentally defended the new powers that congress granted to the music industry. I am not claiming any moral right to break into your or “tom’s” homes and search your computers for scanned copies.
Unless you are suggesting that the copyright holder could transfer a work to someone without the implied limits. In which case I would say that I agree. An artist should have an absolute right to place his work in the public domain.
This again is a problem with the recent legislation. IIRC It gives powers to certain agencies to assume copyrights without proof of them.
No, it does not follow, it preceeds. Allow me to fill in some information which I was taking for granted.
Owners of property have rights as to the use of said property.
Intellectual property exists and is owned by those that create it. Owners of intellectual property have similar rights to that property. One of these rights is the exclusive right of use. That is, the owner of a property has the exclusive use of it. Another is the right to transfer ownership either permanently or temporarily to another party. And in either case (temporary or permanent), the original owner has rights of remuneration for this transfer. Further, both the original and new owners have the right to enforce thier respective rights, although all use of force is granted to the state, so this right is in effect the right to state help in enforcing their respective rights. The state, then, has a duty to stipulate the means and methods of providing this enforcement.*
In the case of copyrights, the “means and methods” include defining what can be copyrighted and enumerating the rights copyright holders have.
I have to pick a nit with this one. The OP was a question about whether or not downloading is moral or immoral. Your decision to burden me is no more valid than my decision to burden you. Except that I think the moral justifications if intellectual property rights go back a long way. The web site I linked mentions John Locke in the 1600s. And so I think that I may be a little more justified in demanding proof from you.
Only a little though
No. As I indicated above, I was assuming the immorallity of the violation of property rights. Not trying to demonstrate it. I have been trying to demonstrate that downloading copyrighted materials without permision is also a violation of property rights.
Not quite, again. I was attempting to argue that Intellectual property rights extend beyond freedom from deprivation.
This post has gone on so long, that I’m not sure if we addressed this. But in the case of Intellectual Property, I think you have asserted this. That is, I think you asserted that downloading is not immoral because it is not depriving the artist of anything. Or have you only said that it is not theft?
Specifically you said on 9-25-2003 at 03:21 AM
I appologize if I have mis interpreted your position. If I have can you restate it? That is, do you think downloading copyrighted material without permision is “not immoral”?
My statements about recently enacted powers to enforce copyrights were not intended to suggest that all powers to envorce them are immoral.
Specifically, if you son creates a CD and sells it, I believe that he as a moral right to expect that his customers will not copy the CD and distribute it to others without his permision.
So, no, people should not upload it anywhere without his permision whether he pays for the CD or not.
I think it will remain immoral for anyone to download his music without permision for a goodly number of years. I’m not sure of the exact number. But it should be at least 7.
As I said, I am not sure about the number of years. I have heard good arguments for 10 years after the artist’s death. Personally I think a fixed number of years is more appropriate. That is, if your son creates a CD and dies the next day, then his heirs should still be able to profit from it for several years.
My point about the powers currently held by copyright holders had to do with the new powers certain agencies have been granted to track down file sharers. As I recall, they have been granted rights to issue suppenas without a judge among other things. So, in reference to your son, even if people do share his music without compensation, I don’t think he has any moral right to break into people’s houses to find them. He certainly has the right to sue, but he cannot bypass due process to do it.
Your final question was something I pointed out to even sven earlier. If it is immoral to copy someones work then that is true even if the creator is rich. I have never believed that stealing from rich people is any different morally than stealing from poor people.
So how does that make it untrue when I say “for whatever reason”.” That is the statement you made and I’m still not following you at all. What is untrue about saying say “for whatever reason”?
Well you didn’t so much imply it so much as state it outright. “I was suggesting that interferance with someones ability to reap a profit from his own work is imoral.”
That aside, this doesn’t appear to be relevant to anything. That other forms of interference can be immoral is a red herring. Unlless of course one of those forms of interference is filesharing, and that is exactly what you are trying to establish, so its not of much use stating that possibility as part of the argument.
But that was never your point. You posted that example of invading my office space to as an analogy to me downloading. As I have pointed out time and again it is an invalid analogy because there is no equitability in terms of deprivation. If your sole point was that you have a right to deny others the use of your real property when such use deprives you of that property then no one has ever disputed that. I have made that point umpteen times. The problem is that filesharing does not deprives you of that property. You still retain all your property and you can still do with it as you see fit even after I download a file. A such the anology is invalid. Now that you have conceded that there is no equitability in deprivation we can ignore the analogy because it is invalid.
Not without moving the goalposts you can’t.
It’s quite simple. I mean what I said. EMI has no right to monopolise what they create. That’s pretty simple. I don’t mean that they should not be able to limit sales indefinitely. I don’t mean they have no right to own what they create. I said they have no right to monopolise it.
Hell, I don’t even mean that they shouldn’t be able to monopolise it. Just that such is not a right.
They have the right to exploit that work in whatever way they wish. If they wish to exploit that work for financial gain then they have the right to do so to the extent that the market will stand.
Add standard caveats for not impinging on rights of others without higher moral principle etc.
Pretty basic really.
Was I duplicitous in making such an agreement? If not then I don’t agree at all.
OK, I‘ll accept that I can fail to demonstrate something simply because I am thick. Under those circumstances obviously the fact that I cannot demonstrate immorality does not imply morality. The trouble I’m having is that there is no practical difference between being unable to demonstrate something, and that something not existing. That then becomes an argument from ignorance doesn’t it? Can you explain why it is not? You certainly seem to be saying that you will believe something is immoral without any evidence whatsoever just because it can’t be proved to be moral.
The trouble with arguments from ignorance is that nothing can ever be established. I could cover every possible circumstance and argument you produce and prove it moral in all those circumstances you will still be able to say that there exists a chance that there is a circumstance or clause hiding somewhere that we haven’t covered, and in that case the act might still be immoral.
Beyond that how exactly do you judge whether ” choices are either moral or immoral” if you believe that an act is not moral simply because it is not immoral? You believe that immorality is not a privative. So how do you delineate morality without referring to it being not immoral. What is an example of a moral act, and why?
Well, no but there are other options. I can find a book in the gutter with no contracts attached to it. The contract only affects the purchaser. There is no way that you could argue that I accept a contract by picking up a manky old copy of ‘Gary Trotter and the Author of Gold’ sans cover out of the gutter. That then becomes my legal property wit no contracts attached, implied or otherwise. The problem is that while I could not purchase a Gary Trotter novel without being aware of and accepting the implied contract there is no such contract if I am simply claiming rubbish. At least not morally.
Yes but that’s all still circular. You haven’t established any moral rights. Only legal ones.
No that’s not correct. We are not discussing the OP generally, but your non-sequitur specifically. You claimed that the existence of intellectual property and its ownership is justification for copyright laws. It is up to you to logically establish that such a justification in fact exists. If you cannot do that your statement is a non sequitur (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#nonseq) and I can label it logically invalid and ignore it.
Can you establish such a justification?
Well in that case we can dismiss the whole argument. You incorporated that assumption in the argument, but you cannot assume the immorality of the violation of property rights because that has not been established. Without establishing such a fact the only way that you could make an argument based on such an assumption w is if we both accepted it as an axiom, and I don’t. The argument is invalid.
Then what was he relevance of trespass? You have completely lost me here. You started out asking why trespass was immoral since it didn’t deprive anyone of anything. What relevance has that got to intellectual property rights extend beyond freedom from deprivation? Trespass is not an intellectual property right. Unless you can make some sort of connection here it’s a total red herring.
Yes you have misinterpreted it. The fact that you cannot find anything close to a quote of me saying “deprivation is the only property right that can be violated” proves that you misrepresented me.
Blake, the only reason for your confusion I can see is that maybe we are using the word monopolise differently. When I hear you say that “EMI has no right to monopolise what they create” I hear you say that EMI has no right to <allow or deny others to use> what they create. Can you verify or deny this? Can you explain what you mean by "EMI has no right to monopolise’?
