Modred189
Can't Read the OP
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 16,336
There are higher laws than that of the state. I cannot stress the importance of this; rights are, by definition, inalienable and if you use the state as your sole source of rights, then you don't truly have rights because every right (including things like the right to life) is subject to the revocation or change at the whims of the dictators that run the state.
There is no natural law justification for imaginary property. Someone who arranges the bits on their hard drive in a certain fashion has not violated anyone's actual rights. Arranging the bits on your hard drive in a similar fashion to the arrangement of someone else's bits doesn't make those bits disappear from their hard drive. I have seen no valid argument justifying imaginary property because every argument I've seen is based on either an emotional argument (argumentum ad passiones), appeal to authority, or entitlement (namely that there is a right to make a profit rather than a right to seek a profit).
That's all nice. But we live in a society dictated by the laws of the state, and these laws (though abused like any other human construct) have real societal value. Furthermore, as a denizen of that state, you are held liable for the violation of those laws. Now, the state allows for a hands off solution to violations (settlements), but the law is the law, and you can't just choose to ignore it.
And you can't ignore the argument for IP rights: By restricting the rights of others, you are increasing the amount of innovation in society as a whole, which is a greater net benefit than the lost right to copy.