| sc94597 said: You're an ancap right? Rothbard was for copyright and against patents. He says that property rights can be split apart and if somebody chooses to sell the part of property that allows one to reproduce and distribute an item while removing the right to sole use of said item he/she can do so. Obviously you would disagree with Rothbard in this matter. I'm interested in your justification (as I want to see both sides of the viewpoint from an ancap perspective.) (Personally I consider violation of copyright as property damage, not theft.) |
I'm not quite sure I understand the bolded.
My view is simple, a contract can be between consenting parties only. A publisher may sell a book to you, and form a contract between you and them. That contract may specify that you may not reproduce the book.
If you go ahead and reproduce that book and then give me a copy, you void your contract, so the publisher can go after you. However, I never consented to any contract with the publisher, the publisher should have no moral justification for coming after me.
I tend to take the Stephan Kinsella approach to IP. He's written for the Mises Institute, and has talks on Youtube, if you want to get the nitty-gritty philosophical take on this side of the argument.
