[pithic]

When a casual passer-by records, copies, and disseminates, no physical aggression is committed. The enforcement of copyright law depends on a third-party initiating a threat of force against property, freedom, and life to dissuade such actions.

Copying is non-violent, whereas preventing it requires violence. And where does copying end, and thought begin? If I examine source code, or lyrics, or a short story, reflect on them, talk about them, and use what I have gleaned, haven't I copied them to some degree?

[olalonde]

Is that your libertarian rationalisation against copyright? Because with that kind of logic we couldn't have contracts either (breaching a contract can be non-violent).

> And where does copying end, and thought begin?

In the same way we decide when a person becomes legally major. We draw whichever arbitrary line seems to make the most sense.

[tremon]

with that kind of logic we couldn't have contracts either

That a false equivalence, contracts are between two parties who both have no grant of violence.