Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law

[John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>]

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