That doesn't necessarily mean copyright isn't justified: one can argue for a positive right to control distribution and reproductions of one's intellectual productions. So with traditional theft, I don't see the wrong being that the thief got something for free, but that the thief removed from me something that I rightfully ought to still have. Traditional views on theft I think are justified by a negative right to not have the security of one's person and possessions violated, e.g. On the 2nd one, reduced income isn't very interesting to me, since I don't believe there's any ethical right to make income from things in the first place. Because these are coming out very obviously flawed. I realize you see an injustice in rampant copying, but I don't think you're thinking through your arguments, or not wording them well. Some will make their whole income with visual studio or photo shop, but only pay a tiny fraction of that. (though the provided value will vary from buyer to buyer.) In truth, commercial software is frequently sold way below the price of the value it provides. It it were, the buyer would get no gains from trade. Virtually nothing is sold at the price of the value it provides. about the same as the value they provide).

>Name any big consumer application that could have been developed that way with developers getting paid about the same as they would by selling it (i.e. >So are you saying that nobody is buying software? Software does cost 'that much' and people are buying it. I understand the law, what is the justification of the law? This right does not need to come from law, though law ought to recognize it. (Really?) I asserted a general right to copy information. You claimed that people are not entitled to get something for free 'if I want them to pay me for it'. This discussion is on whether deprivation of income is sufficient to qualify as an ethical violation. And they cannot legally copy and distribute it.

Pirate bay atomic blonde torrent