[icebraining]

But nobody stoled anything. The author voluntarily sold a copy of the work, which the buyer then proceed to use as he pleased, including sharing it with others.

If the painter wants to control his painting, he has to give up on selling it, yet somehow authors of digital works get to control the stuff after they sold it.

[millstone]

The author voluntarily sold a copy of his work, but with strings attached. The buyer accepted those limitations as a condition of the sale, and when he duplicated and distributed the contents, he violated the mutually agreed upon terms of the sale, and can be sued.

The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.

[Drakim]

> The idea that you should not _be able_ to sell a copy of a book without also selling distribution rights to that book strikes me as anti-capitalist.

I'm not with you on that one. "distribution rights" in this context would have to be artificially enforced by government, since it doesn't exist naturally in a market place.

I'm not saying that government shouldn't enforce these distribution rights (I don't think anybody should for instance burn pirated movies to blank DVDs and sell them on the street).

But to call it "anti-capitalist" because of lack of law and regulation on the governments side strikes me as kinda ironic. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite, more capitalistic if every individual can sell and buy without interference?

[millstone]

Distribution rights can arise naturally as a contract or condition of sale. I will sell you this data if you agree that you will never give a copy to someone else.

The government's role is limited to enforcing contracts, and government interference is in limiting what contracts can be established between parties.