Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law
> 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.
> 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
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?