[drknownuffin]

But it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration.

The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.

[tracedddd]

Perhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others.

If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice?

Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.

[david422]

> If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost?

But if it wasn't worth something, you wouldn't do it.

So the person that created it wants a certain value, and the person copying it wants to copy it but doesn't want to pay that value.