[icebraining]

Because it's private property, and the owner says you can't have it.

The owner can say whatever he or she wants. I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.

Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.

It wasn't an agreement, they are terms set by an unjust monopoly that rests upon force. I consider it no more unfair than eating the salt collected during the Salt March.

[diminoten]

> I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.

Reading? No (you agreed to allow your comments to be read when you posted them). Using your comments elsewhere without attribution? Yes. You never agreed to that.

And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?

You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.

[icebraining]

And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?

It does rest on force. People who refuse to accept the imposed rules can go to jail. And that does matter to me.

You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.

Of course not. If I thought that I'd be suing or somehow forcing the copyright holders to give me copies of their work. I'm not entitled to anything, I'm merely accepting what is being shared with me. It's the other copyright (and patent) holders who think they are entitled to have special protections paid for by the rest of society.

By the way, they might call it property, but that concept only makes sense as a system for dealing with scarce, rivalrous goods. In this case, it's nothing but a marketing term.

[diminoten]

You're a radical who doesn't accept the common premise of private property.

[icebraining]

So would a slave owner say to the abolitionist.

I accept private property, when it's justified by reality, not when it's imposed for the profit of a few minorities.

[diminoten]

No, you on't accept private property, because if you did then you'd honor agreements made with regard to said private property, instead of spew this entitled bullshit.

Your arrogance literally makes me want to vomit.