Intellectual Property

[SnowDog]

I don't agree.

 

If you make a movie and take the story from someone else, without permission, then you've stolen the story. The idea that you can do whatever you want with whatever ideas come into your head, by whatever method they get there, is incorrect.

 

It's the same argument as if you go out and buy a diamond ring, and then come to find that the ring you bought, was stolen property, and is a sentimental heirloom. You'll have to return the property, even though it was honestly acquired and in your possession. Likewise, if you intercept intellectual property from someone who violated a contract to put it up on the internet in a torrent, then it's not his to give, and it's not yours to keep.

 

What the NAP ultimately wants to do, is protect the product of someone's labor. This is why property is invented in the first place. The NAP protects us by allowing us to act and pursue our lives, as if we lived alone, even though we live amongst others.

[NoTreason]

A ring is a rivalrous good, only one person can use it at a time, and it can actually be returned.

 

Two people can use the same idea at the same time with their own resources and without either infringing the others ability to do the same. It's not rivalrous.

 

Like i said before, what your claiming to have a property right in isn't the idea, it's the rivalrous property.

 

When you say someone has no right to use an idea, you are claiming you have the individual right to control their body and their resources. You're making a claim to rivalrous property, not intellectual property. If that person has already made a profit with their resources and product you are making a claim to the income they received, a rivalrous good.

 

NAP is to protect rivalrous resources. Labor and ideas arnt property because they are not rivalrous. IP actually isnt compatible with NAP at all because the only way for you to enforce that others don't use your ideas is to claim a right to their body and property against their will with the use of force.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Okay, so a novel, or movie, or musical composition is not property? Try recreating one from scratch. Having never read, seen, or heard the original.

 

This is the point at which the argument against IP needs to clarify itself.

 

If I invent a new technological gadget, I would be hard-pressed to prove that it was "original"; in the sense that no one else could have come up with the idea.

 

That's a given. Thus, patents are a State-sponsored monopoly on freely accesible ideas, designed to exclude others from the market.

 

Technology is based on the three elements of physical reality: chemistry, the building materials; physics, the conditions under which materials act; and, mathematics, the language that brings it all together.

 

Please explain how art follows this pattern.

 

Although one could, independently, come up with a similar technology, how could anyone, independently, create a similar work of art? And by similar, I mean exact duplicate.

 

Patents and copyright are apples and oranges. Arguments of apples vs. oranges always bring out the most subjective, and irrational points of view.

[NoTreason]

"Okay, so a novel, or movie, or musical composition is not property?"

 

No, it's not property because it is not a rivalrous good or resource.

 

"Try recreating one from scratch. Having never read, seen, or heard the original."

 

Exactly, same goes to you. Everything any one creates is with knowledge that they learned previously from someone else. Knowledge isn't rivalrous, we can all use the same knowledge at the same time without infringing on the other individuals ability to use that knowledge with his own resources to create something. For example, we can both play the same notes on our own guitars at the same time without infringing on eachothers ability to play those notes with our guitars. BUT, we both can't play the same notes on the same guitar, because the guitar is a rivalrous good and can only be used by one person at a time.

 

If you claim that you have a right to the song then you're claiming that you have a right to my body and my guitar to prevent me from using my body to play my guitar. The guitar makes the music, not the knowledge in my brain, so it's a dispute over who has the right to control what's done with the guitar, not who has the right to control what's done with the knowledge. I can think about the same all day long, you're not disputing that I know the song, only that I play it with a guitar. It's my use of the guitar that you claiming a property right in.

 

If you paint a picture of a fish you need to own your own paint, easel, paper, paintbrush, etc.. if I see your painting and paint a picture of the same fish I need my own paint, easel, paper, and paintbrush. I didn't steal anything, you still have all your supplies and your painting a property right in them both. If you turn to me and tell me I have no right to use my paint, easel, paper, and paintbrush then you are claiming a property right in them. If I sell it and you sue for my profit then you are claiming a property in the money. It's never anything but the rivalrous good there is property claim to.

 

You want scarcity, you want to prevent more paintings of fish so that you can sell yours for more, you have to initiate the use of force to control how other people use their property so it's both immoral AND bad for the economy.

[SnowDog]

A ring is a rivalrous good, only one person can use it at a time, and it can actually be returned.Two people can use the same idea at the same time with their own resources and without either infringing the others ability to do the same. It's not rivalrous.Like i said before, what your claiming to have a property right in isn't the idea, it's the rivalrous property.When you say someone has no right to use an idea, you are claiming you have the individual right to control their body and their resources. You're making a claim to rivalrous property, not intellectual property. If that person has already made a profit with their resources and product you are making a claim to the income they received, a rivalrous good.NAP is to protect rivalrous resources. Labor and ideas arnt property because they are not rivalrous. IP actually isnt compatible with NAP at all because the only way for you to enforce that others don't use your ideas is to claim a right to their body and property against their will with the use of force.

 

You're making lots of assertions, but you're not supporting them. If labor isn't property, then why are contracts valid? Let's say that I hire you to build my fence, and I supply the tools and lumber. Then after you build the fence, I refuse to pay on the grounds that you don't own your labor? Here, you're claiming that a contract is somehow valid, when the terms outlined in the contract are not owned by the parties of the contract. A contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exchange of property. Otherwise, there's no argument to make it any more valid than a simple promise.But a key point that's being overlooked is: what's the purpose of property? If you don't believe that property should be protected as the product of labor, then why should it be protected at all? How do you view the causes that give rise to the need for property in your model for the NAP?

[ribuck]

Okay, so a novel, or movie, or musical composition is not property? Try recreating one from scratch.

 

I assume that you get copyright clearance each time you sing "Happy Birthday".

 

If not, I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

[Guest darkskyabove]

If you claim that you have a right to the song then you're claiming that you have a right to my body and my guitar to prevent me from using my body to play my guitar.

 

Again, I'm sensing a conflation of patent and copyright. Using the errors of patents as a justification to deny copyright is a strawman, at the least.

 

Copyright, as I understand it, does not prevent someone from playing any particular song. It is designed to prevent one from profiting off the labor of another. The painting example is the same. Nothing prevents you from copying a Van Gogh, but to attempt the sale of your copy as an original is fraud. In my view, simply representing it as an original, even without monetary interest, is a lie, thus morally indefensible.

 

I assume that you get copyright clearance each time you sing "Happy Birthday".

 

If not, I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

 

First, I believe "Happy Birthday" is not under an active copyright.

Second, see above: without a monetary transaction, and without misrepresentation, where is the transgression?

[ribuck]

First, I believe "Happy Birthday" is not under an active copyright.

Second, see above: without a monetary transaction, and without misrepresentation, where is the transgression?

 

In the UK, "Happy Birthday" is under copyright until 2016.

 

In the US the copyright will expire in 2030, but some claim the copyright is invalid in the US. Nevertheless, Warner collects a couple of million dollars in royalties each year, so lots of lawyers must consider "Happy Birthday" to be still copyrighted.

 

As for your comments about monetary transactions and misrepresentations, these have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright, as the word suggests, is about the right to make copies. I have the right to make copies of Shakespeare's works because the copyright has expired. I have the right to copy Shakespeare whether I charge money or not. I even have the right to copy Shakespeare if I misrepresent the authorship. On the other hand, copyright law does not permit me to copy the movie "Star Wars", even if I charge nothing and make no misrepresentation, because its copyright has not expired.

[NoTreason]

"You're making lots of assertions, but you're not supporting them. If labor isn't property, then why are contracts valid? Let's say that I hire you to build my fence, and I supply the tools and lumber. Then after you build the fence, I refuse to pay on the grounds that you don't own your labor? Here, you're claiming that a contract is somehow valid, when the terms outlined in the contract are not owned by the parties of the contract. A contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exchange of property. Otherwise, there's no argument to make it any more valid than a simple promise."

 

You said it yourself, 'a contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exhange of propety'

 

Using your own example, you're trade someone money (a rivalrous good) for the building of a fence (a rivalrous good). It has nothing to do with labor, the trade is of rivalrous goods.

 

It doesn't matter that he already owned the raw materials and tools, he's paying to rearrange those raw materials into a fence, it's a rivalrous good. He's not paying you for the movement of your body but for the rearranging of his raw materials.

 

As i've said before, IP and labor disputes are always over rivalrous goods.

 

"But a key point that's being overlooked is: what's the purpose of property? If you don't believe that property should be protected as the product of labor, then why should it be protected at all? How do you view the causes that give rise to the need for property in your model for the NAP?"

 

NAP is based on individual property and contract rights, labor and IP arn't property.

 

Labor is an action not a 'good' or property that can be 'owned', it is the rearranging of raw materials into other more preferrable goods, that's what is a good and can actually be owned.

 

Stephan Kinsella talks about this alot, check it his work on the topic. He does a much better job explaining it than i can.

[Guest darkskyabove]

In the UK, "Happy Birthday" is under copyright until 2016.

 

In the US the copyright will expire in 2030, but some claim the copyright is invalid in the US. Nevertheless, Warner collects a couple of million dollars in royalties each year, so lots of lawyers must consider "Happy Birthday" to be still copyrighted.

 

As for your comments about monetary transactions and misrepresentations, these have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright, as the word suggests, is about the right to make copies.

 

Granted on the Happy Birthday. Though I'll just weasel out by stating that I don't celebrate ANY holidays, and definitely do not celebrate "happy one year closer to death." The last being a personal original (AFAIK), but feel free to use it at will.

 

As to "copyright" only applying to the making of copies, I refer you to a generic source for the standard definition.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

 

What bothers me about this debate is that rather than deconstruct the ideas into "what is right and proper", the attack against State intervention has become the driving force. I am on record as being against patents; they are a grant of privilege by the State without a moral justification. There appears no way to prove that someone could never, independently, create any specific technological device; much less, justify the ex ante prevention of people even trying. Well and good.

 

I view works of art as a different category. (And even by current, legal, definition, they are. You cannot patent a work of art.) I do not see any way to claim that one person could, independently, create a work of art, identical to the original. How many monkeys, random pecking on a keyboard, would it take to reproduce the works of "Shakespeare"? The answer is zero, as it would never happen, even though there is an infinitesimal probability of success. (If anyone wishes to debate the prospect of infinitesimals be afraid, be very afraid. )

 

If this debate is to take the current conception, and tweak it to fit personal bias, I'm Outie 5000.

 

If people wish to reconstruct a fair conception of what the status of contract is under the NAP, let's get to work.

Labor is an action not a 'good' or property that can be 'owned'...

 

So, what is it? What is labor, if not a "good". Why bother, then?

 

Please do some more research. There are, ultimately, only two "goods": land and labor. Without those you have NOTHING.

 

Where did you come up with the claim that labor is not a "good"?

 

As to why it is, I refer you to Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard.

[SnowDog]

"You said it yourself, 'a contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exhange of propety'" 

 

OK, so we engage in a contract for you to write a song for me. Then as soon as you write the song, I decline to pay you on the grounds that you don't, and can't, own the song. You either own the song, in which case the contract is valid; or you can't own the song, in which case it isn't valid.

 

The purpose of property is to allow people to maintain control of the products of their labor, because this control is why they engage in the labor. It has nothing to do with the scarcity of the product. This whole idea that labor is based on scarcity is Kinsella's, and its base is inadequate to explain why we even require property to live as humans. 

[Kawlinz]

You could easily ask for the payment up front... problem solved. Escrow service... problem solved. Or would that be too simple?

[Kawlinz]

Or tie the contract to the labour used (service provided) rather than the ownership of a song. I'm getting pretty good at this

[SnowDog]

Or tie the contract to the labour used (service provided) rather than the ownership of a song. I'm getting pretty good at this

 

Of course you can work around it, but which is the simpler model?People set values; work to acquire those values; then expect to keep possession of those values after they acquire them. Contracts are validated. Fraud, as a moral breech is validated. IP is validated. Everything works.Or start with scarcity, [why?], and claim that everything which is scarce, and only that which is scarce, is up for possession. [Like the Moon?] Why? 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Why?

 

Exactly. WHY?

 

Why can I not profit from the labor of my mind? Not the labor of everyone's mind, the labor of MY mind.

 

Again, and again, and again, I have asked: Can anyone claim to be able to reproduce a work of art without having witnessed the original?

 

I have received numerous side-stepping replies that NEVER answer the question. Most have proposed that they are "entitled" to my work because it is not "property".

 

Let's take that proposition to its logical conclusion. If MY labor is YOURS to have, why would I bother? Why would I spend the time, and resources, to create something that anyone can claim as their own?

 

Let's try a syllogism.

 

I create X.

You can use X at your will.

Therefore, anything you create, I can use at my will.

 

Do people, really, want to live this way?

[Kawlinz]

Of course you can work around it, but which is the simpler model?People set values; work to acquire those values; then expect to keep possession of those values after they acquire them. Contracts are validated. Fraud, as a moral breech is validated. IP is validated. Everything works.Or start with scarcity, [why?], and claim that everything which is scarce, and only that which is scarce, is up for possession. [Like the Moon?] Why? 

 

Everything doesn't work, because there are people who aren't a part of the contract that can hear or see the physical representation of the idea.

 

Ideas can be freely copied. That's what I start with. I don't have to use force or aggression to sense an idea that originated from someone else, and copy it. I quoted your post, and you're none-the-worse off. If ideas can't be freely copied, I need to see the reasoning. 

 

Exactly. WHY?

 

Why can I not profit from the labor of my mind? Not the labor of everyone's mind, the labor of MY mind.

 

Again, and again, and again, I have asked: Can anyone claim to be able to reproduce a work of art without having witnessed the original?

 

I have received numerous side-stepping replies that NEVER answer the question. Most have proposed that they are "entitled" to my work because it is not "property".

 

Let's take that proposition to its logical conclusion. If MY labor is YOURS to have, why would I bother? Why would I spend the time, and resources, to create something that anyone can claim as their own?

 

Let's try a syllogism.

 

I create X.

You can use X at your will.

Therefore, anything you create, I can use at my will.

 

Do people, really, want to live this way?

 

who said you can't profit from your labour?

 

And why would being able to recreate a piece of art without seeing the original be a big deal? it depends on the work, the more complex the work, the less likely. If we're talking about a poster, does the "original copy" have to be pixel perfect? or does it have to have the same theme? same colour scheme? same subject matter? Let's I paint a pink star on a psychedelic tye dye background. I personally haven't seen this, but it's a simple enough concept. You might be able to point to a similar painting. It might be pretty close. I don't think it's gonna be a pixel perfect, but that's generally not the accuracy that copyright or IP states is necessary for infringing on a work.

 

even if you had a piece of artwork that was SOOO original that no one could have done it after you without having seen yours - so what? let's say it's the case - why when you've made the artwork, can I not use the IDEA behind the artwork? Why can I not replicate it?

 

your labour isn't mine to have. if you make a painting, it's yours. If you build a deck, it's yours. What I don't think is logical is saying "Since I've created this painting/deck, no one can recreate this pattern of a painting or deck without my say so".

[NoTreason]

If you hire somebody to write a song and have them teach it to you, you are paying them for the knowledge. The song is property, its not rivalrous, and he can play the song whenever they, or anyone else, wants to, without infringing on your ability to play it. You have a right to the knowledge because its in your head and you have a property right in your body so you can control that knowledge. But, you want to control other peoples knowledge so youre claiming a property right in their body.

 

A body is rivalrous property.

 

IP is always about rivalrous property.

[Josh F]

Intead of examining the morality of stealing Intellectual Property, look at the morality of enforcing it.  I go to a bar, and cover the Beatles all night.  An agent comes in says, hey that is the intellectual property of Michael Jackson's heir, you can't play that.  Threatens me with arrest and fines.  Where was the NAP violated?  When I played music someone else wrote or when the agent threatened me with jail?

[Guest darkskyabove]

I think there's a bit of apples vs. oranges going on. At no time have I, or any other poster in this thread, advocated the control of knowledge or of other people.

 

My position is as follows:

 

Do I think it is morally defensible to copy a Van Gogh painting, or any work of art? Yes. The act of replicating, in and of itself, seems morally neutral; no one is disadvantaged.

 

Do I think it is morally defensible to copy a Van Gogh painting, or any work of art, and then attempting to profit by it? It depends. A clear representation of the copy as a copy allows for a fair transaction. Misrepresenting the copy as an original is fraud.

 

Kawlinz's example of painting/deck seems reasonable at first, but I don't see it as a fair comparison. Building a deck requires knowledge and some engineering to make the best use of space and materials. Virtually identical decks created by separate individuals with no contact between each other is not far-fetched at all.

 

Creating a work of art, though it does involve the use of freely available knowledge, requires an additional component. That component is an intangible. The mechanics of art can be taught, the final product cannot. And the final product is what is of value. Art school sketchbooks from unknown students are not a hot commodity.

 

My entire point rests on a simple concept: the sanctity of voluntary contract. Profiting from the labor of another without consent is not defensible.

[Kawlinz]

My entire point rests on a simple concept: the sanctity of voluntary contract. Profiting from the labor of another without consent is not defensible.

I agree with that.

 

If I forced you to make a painting for me because I wanted one, possibly to sell, I'd be profiting from your labour without your consent.

If you paint a picture and i take it, I'd be profiting from your labour without your consent.

 

i think copying your painting is different. If you paint a picture, I see it without being a part of some sort of agreement, then I do my own work to recreate that painting (whether I paint it myself, take a picture and create prints) I'm not profiting from your labour, I'm profiting from mine. Your labour is separate from the idea your labour represents. Copying is not taking your labour, it's taking the idea.

 

My point also rest on a simple concept which I've stated: Ideas can be freely copied. Notice it's not "Idea's should be free to copy". I'm not prescribing anything, i'm describing what happens in the world. The moment I see your painting, I have a copy in my brain - no force. I've still not seen a good reason that I shouldn't be able to profit from an idea in my head, even if it originated with you.

[Guest darkskyabove]

My point also rest on a simple concept which I've stated: Ideas can be freely copied. Notice it's not "Idea's should be free to copy". I'm not prescribing anything, i'm describing what happens in the world. The moment I see your painting, I have a copy in my brain - no force. I've still not seen a good reason that I shouldn't be able to profit from an idea in my head, even if it originated with you.

 

We're probably closer to some form of general agreement than this thread might previously show.

 

The sticking point for me has nothing to do with copying "ideas", or even actual works. It has to do with misrepresentation of value. If you copy my work, well, so be it. If you copy my work and present it as the "original", I see a misrepresentation constituting fraud. That is the only form of false profit I am against. If you can make money from a copy of my idea, without using my status to gain "value", there is no fraud that I can see.

 

Certain works have higher value due to the creator's status. Reputation can be the difference between success and failure. To cash in on another's reputation does not seem "right and proper".

[Alan C.]

It's a false dichotomy to say that we must either have IP or people get to copy and sell whatever they want.

 

I think that people recognize dishonorable behavior and that the market would devise mechanisms to discourage it. While copying isn't technically "theft," it may be construed as being in poor taste.

 

Obviously, if everyone simply downloaded copies of everything from the Internet without compensating developers then new content would eventually disappear because people have to earn a living. Methods for curtailing freeloading include digital distribution platform integration (eg. Steam) and social stigma.

[Kawlinz]

We're probably closer to some form of general agreement than this thread might previously show.

 

The sticking point for me has nothing to do with copying "ideas", or even actual works. It has to do with misrepresentation of value. If you copy my work, well, so be it. If you copy my work and present it as the "original", I see a misrepresentation constituting fraud. That is the only form of false profit I am against. If you can make money from a copy of my idea, without using my status to gain "value", there is no fraud that I can see.

 

Certain works have higher value due to the creator's status. Reputation can be the difference between success and failure. To cash in on another's reputation does not seem "right and proper".

Right, saying you've made an original when it's a copy of someone else's work is fraud. Fraud is different to what i think about when I hear the word copyright or IP. if that's your stance, then yeah, complete agreement.

[SnowDog]

It's a false dichotomy to say that we must either have IP or people get to copy and sell whatever they want.

 

I think that people recognize dishonorable behavior and that the market would devise mechanisms to discourage it. While copying isn't technically "theft," it may be construed as being in poor taste.

 

Obviously, if everyone simply downloaded copies of everything from the Internet without compensating developers then new content would eventually disappear because people have to earn a living. Methods for curtailing freeloading include digital distribution platform integration (eg. Steam) and social stigma.

 

I'm not interested in practical enforcement, but rather the moral argument. If there is no moral argument for IP, then it's not immoral, and not in poor taste to take someone else's work, whether it be art or text, then change it however they choose, and distribute it for profit. They could take a novel, remove the author's name from it and sell it, or take a new released movie, remove all the credits and sell it. 

 

The truth is, all property is intellectual property. When we look at a car, we're not looking at the value of the material that went into the car, but rather the design and creation that became the car. It's the intellectual input that's valued. The fact that this value comes in a single package, the car, should not be relevant to what it is we're trying to protect, which is that value that some people put into changing the shape of nature into something useful. That's what we should be protecting. If we care about the value of the labor that went into the car, and therefore reimburse people for such value when the car is damaged in an accident, then we should care about the value that goes into property which can be easily copied. If I write a great novel, or spend millions of dollars and years of time producing a great movie, then it's my right to object that someone who has found a copy of a DVD is then redistributing it without my permission. The work is what's mine; not the package.And what the NAP should be designed to protect is the individual's physical body, and the product of his labor. This is key. To separate the product of someone's labor from moral protection is to disavow ownership of the labor that went into creating the item, and therefore to disavow the value that was conceived in the mind of the individual, before any work was done. The ability to live requires that people be allowed to pursue value, by imagining it, creating it, and then keeping it. This is the essence of Life, Liberty, and Property. 

[ribuck]

Snowdog, you use words like "work" and "labor". By the time the creator has crystallized their creativity into some tangible form, they have done the work.

 

If someone else makes a copy (in the absence of a contract to the contrary), it's the copier who is doing the work to create the copy. The originator doesn't do any further work to create the copy, and the copier is not exploiting the originator by doing whatever he likes with the copy he made.

[SnowDog]

... The copier is not exploiting the originator by doing whatever he likes with the copy he made.

 

How do you know?

[ribuck]

How do you know?

 

Because the person who made the copy used his own materials and his own labor to make the copy.

 

The originator still has what he created. The originator created the original, not the original plus all subsequent copies.

[RestoringGuy]

I'm not interested in practical enforcement, but rather the moral argument. If there is no moral argument for IP, then it's not immoral, and not in poor taste to take someone else's work, whether it be art or text, then change it however they choose, and distribute it for profit. They could take a novel, remove the author's name from it and sell it, or take a new released movie, remove all the credits and sell it. 

 

Indeed the moral argument is the real concern.  Copying is apparently non-violent and adds to the richness of the world, at least momentarily.  It is only through identification of long-range consequences that IP is legitimized.  To have IP, we weigh economic effect as superior to objective morality.  Intuitively, stealing removes from the owner that object that is stolen.  So on pure moral grounds, copying is not theft.  But if we say economic effect and artistic encouragement trump non-violence, copying is wrong.  But then by that standard, technically it should be OK to enslave people to produce art for you.

 

Doing otherwise would reduce the incentive to produce it.  The slave enhances the owner, and removal of art-based slavery would reduce future art.  In the same way, removal of piracy reduces future profits of the author.  The argument is analogous.  It would seem to me the potential future economic effects is a pretty weak moral foundation on which to build IP.  I think the author of work of art is not a total dictator of the future, and violation  of IP is more about rudeness and hostile speech than it is about direct theft.

[Tadas]

'Scarce' in property rights means 'rivalrous'. If you use my car, it means you're interfering with my usage of it. A piece of information can be known by an unlimited amount of people. In that sense, ideas, concepts, plans are not scarce, and therefore cannot be property (which is all about scarce resources).

 

 

I think it need clarification.

 

If it is just interfering with your usage rights then I am allowed to use your car while you do not use it. all i have to do is not to prevent you from using it when you need it and do not damage.

 

it could be extended to the rape as if woman is drunk or sleeping she is not using her body right now and thus I can borrow it temporarily.

[wdiaz03]

I think it need clarification.

 

If it is just interfering with your usage rights then I am allowed to use your car while you do not use it. all i have to do is not to prevent you from using it when you need it and do not damage.

 

it could be extended to the rape as if woman is drunk or sleeping she is not using her body right now and thus I can borrow it temporarily.

 

A car is a consumer good that wears as you use it. SO you will be adding wear to the parts.

 

There's also no way of not preventing the owner from using it. Owner comes out of the house and you took the car...Are you going to teleport it back?

 

It is also impossible to borrow the body, if she is sleeping she cannot be disturbed. Or are you going to rape her without touching her? like a ghost would?

 

The whole idea is silly.

[ribuck]

If we are using a car analogy, it needs to be an applicable one.

 

Suppose I saw your car, or perhaps you even gave me a ride in it. I then went back to my garage and built a similar one. A copy of yours.

 

Have I stolen the car?

 

If you make a movie and take the story from someone else, without permission, then you've stolen the story.

 

No. The author still has the story.

[Libertus]

[...]The whole idea is silly.

Thank you for jumping in. I totally agree with your response.