Norwegian blogger Onar Åm shows why an attack on IP is an attack on the rule of law.
http://onarki.vgb.no/2010/10/the-basis-of-intellectual-property-right/
Feel free to comment here in addition to the commentary field under the article.
The Moral Basis for Intellectual Property Rights
Today I will deal with a topic that I too rarely speak of, namely intellectual property rights. What is it? And what is its metaphysical, moral and legal basis? Intellectual property rights are rights to ownership over products of the mind such as novels, music, articles, research data and software. Today this form of property right is under heavy attack especially from two groups, namely marxists and some libertarians. The strange thing is that these groups essentially have the same metaphysical reason against intellectual property rights, even if they in other contexts are enemies. Both launch a materialistic attack on intellectual property rights. Generally this amounts to denying the existence of information. Materially speaking information does not exist. Only matter exists, and therefore there can be no such thing as intellectual property, only material property rights. If for instance a libertarian buys a book he will argue that this physical book is his property and that he therefore can do whatever he wants to with it, including copying its content and distributing it as he wishes. Since information really does not exist he has done nothing wrong, violated no-one, since he has only manipulated atoms that he himself owns (the physical book). Let us now investigate the consequences of this view. It is easier to understand the implications of this line of reasoning if look at the general case, namely information rights, which intellectual property rights are a part of. If information does not exist and therefore cannot be owned this implies that privacy laws have no moral basis. Espionage should then be perfectly legal. If one breaks into a house and find sensitive information the break-in itself will be punishable, but not the spreading of sensitive information found in the house during the break-in. One could also prick someone with a needle and acquire blood which allows one to get hold of that person’s DNA. A needle prick in itself is not a major violation and would therefore not be severly punished, but to map that other person’s DNA and spread sensitive data about that person’s genetic disorder must be legal since this is only information, which does not really exist. But it gets worse. All contracts build on information rights, i.e. the premise that the information contained in an agreement results in legally binding rights. To be consistent the libertarian must argue that contracts cannot exist because all that exists are atoms. In other words, one can scribble on a piece of paper or make sounds with one’s mouth, but these cannot be legally binding since information does not exist. In addition threats will also be legal. To hold a gun and say “hand me your money or die” cannot be illegal since this after all is just a series of noises. Information has no existence. In other words, to be consistent a libertarian must claim that only a physical violation is illegal. A rapist who threatens his victim with a knife will not be convicted in court unless he physically hurts his victim because he will claim that the knife is his and he was taking it for a walk. Sure, he uttered a few words about killing the poor woman if she did not obey him, but they were just sounds and it is her own fault if she interpreted those noises as threatening. Lies and defamations are also out of court. A journalist can invent an interview with whomever he likes and print it in his paper. This will not be illegal because it after all is just ink on a piece of paper. Information does not exist and therefore lies cannot have any legal consequences. And then there is intellectual property rights. If you write and publish a book, anyone can copy the content of that book and put all of it free on the Internet, or make pirat copies of your book and sell them, or publish the book under another name, or change the content of the book as one pleases. To be fair, it is only this last thing that libertarians actually are in favor of, and if you confront them with this list they will deny that these are implications of their view. They will claim that they are advocates of privacy, because they feel like it, and that this has nothing to do with their view on property rights. These are separate topics because nothing relating to information can be connected. “Information rights? What are you talking about? Information does not exist! How can privacy have anything to do with publishing books?” But man is properly not viewed only as a material being, but also as a spiritual one. We are different from other beings in that we have a free will and we survive by abstracting and processing information from our environment. We are not only corporal beings, but also very much information beings.It is with information that we tell lies and truth, it is with information we make deals, and we codify our mental work in the form of information. Yes, even something as mundane as secrets and privacy are codified as information, and all this will from a classical liberal perspective give rise to information rights in line with the principle that the individual owns himself and has the right to decide over his own life. Therefore we need privacy laws, contract laws, intellectual property rights and protection from fraud and threats. All these fall in under the concept of information rights and without that concept a proper government that protects individual rights will not be possible. Codification of intellectual property rights The next step is to show what legal building blocks are needed to make intellectual property rights. If you go back hundreds of years to England in the late medieval period, there were laws concerning property and contracts. Contract law was different from today in that it was only possible to make legally binding agreement between named parties. A lot of contracts are like that even, such as marriage. One party in a marriage cannot hire a substitute to replace him because a marriage is an agreement between two specific, named individuals. But this constraint in contract law was a major impediment for commerce and finance. It prevented the rise of paper money, bonds and other financial instruments. Frequently traders were travelling far and it was impractical for them to bring with them large quantities of gold. Therefore it was desirable to have a type of contract with a nameless counterparty. That is, whoever held the contract could legally make the claim of the contract against the other party. In this way a contract between a depositor and a bank could be transferred to another party. By so doing that contract could now act as a substitute for gold, which was easier to carry and handle than large quantities of physical gold. Whoever held such a contract which said “redeemable in gold” could go to the issuer and swap that contract for the amount of gold stated on the banknote. (of course, gold was later then abandoned and banned as money altogether, but that’s another sad, sad story.) This was a seminal development in law because it now allowed people to treat contracts not only as a legal document, but also as property in its own right that could be transferred, bought and sold. As we shall see this was an important step towards intellectual property. A corollary to this was to enable the combination of physical property with contracts that were tied to the property, and not merely to the owners. In law this is known as a lien. For instance, a farmer may sell his property with the condition that the old farmhouse shall be maintained and preserved. This is a lien on the property. The condition is built into the property and a claim on a nameless owner, so that if the buyer sells the farm to a hitherto unknown third party, then that condition still applies to the third party. He, the third owner must also maintain and preserve the old farmhouse as a precondition for buying the property. Liens are part of the property. They are transferred with the property. Liens can also be used to implement a limited form of intellectual property rights. Suppose now that an author publishes a book. The buyers of the book are free to sell or give the book to others as they see fit. They are free to read it, burn it, use it as bricks or however they like, but the book comes with certain legally binding restrictions. The intellectual content of the book cannot be distributed and sold. These restrictions are transferred to any new owner of the book. They are liens. But what about third parties who acquire a book by non-contractual means, i.e. through theft or by finding a book that has been lost or dumped? They have never agreed to anything, either explicitly or implicitly. Someone who hears a song on the radio has never signed a contract that obliges him not to copy and distribute it. Obviously this reduces the power of liens with respect to information to impotence, and this is where a third and crucial advance in law was necessary to complete the legal framework of intellectual property rights, namely declaratory laws. A declaratory law is a default standard contract that is assumed to be valid, unless something else is explicitly agreed upon. All laws that pertain to social relations can be formulated as declaratory laws. Ending someone’s life, for instance, is not in and of itself a violation. It depends on whether that person wants to die or not. In the first case, the act is euthanasia which is legitimate, and in the other case it is murder which is a criminal offense. But it would be impossibly cumbersome if everyone had to go running around with signs stating that they do not wish to be killed or harmed in any way. To avoid this one can reduce the amount of bureaucracy and legal overhead by creating a declaratory law which is an unsigned, implicit standard contract states that by default unless anything else is agreed upon, killing someone is murder. Declaratory laws entail major effects on people’s lives and on society and must therefore be carefully constructed so that they do not violate the rights of individuals, but that is a topic for another time. It is sufficient to state that when constructed properly and legitimately declaratory laws can be used as the final building block necessary to implement intellectual property rights. The declaratory law needed to complete the framework is a law that states that by default the copyrighted information cannot be copied or distributed without the consent of the owner of the copyright. This means that if a copyrighted book comes into your possession by non-contractual means then you are still bound by the lien contained in the book, which bars you from copying or distributing the content of the book. Similar declaratory laws can be made for patents and other kinds of intellectual property rights. The limitation of such a declaratory law is that with time a work of fiction or a patent becomes so diffused into the culture that it is impossible to avoid them, and therefore all intellectual property rights must be time limited and expire. In summary, the legal framework that is needed to implement intellectual property rights is 1) contracts with unnamed, unspecified parties, effectively rendering contracts into property, 2) liens which allow contractual restrictions to be codified into property and 2) declaratory laws which allow the restrictions to apply also to people who acquire such property by non-contractual. Anyone who wishes to attack intellectual property rights must therefore also attack these three legal constructs in general. This effectively renders rule of law impossible. Hence, an attack on intellectual property rights is an attack on the rule of law.
The whole article is garbage. The writing is decent but no argument exists within it. it's just some strange assertions and fictional premises that are somehow supposed to lead one to believe the libertarian anti-IP position is wrong. It does a very poor job of that . And that's coming from someone who isn't totally sold on the anti-IP view himself.
This is quite amusing....
The author, in the body of the article before the following passage, has asserted that anti-IP libertarians "don't believe that information exists." That preface helps make some sense of the following passage, which is laugh out loud absurd.
"To be consistent the libertarian must argue that contracts cannot exist because all that exists are atoms. In other words, one can scribble on a piece of paper or make sounds with one’s mouth, but these cannot be legally binding since information does not exist.
In addition threats will also be legal. To hold a gun and say “hand me your money or die” cannot be illegal since this after all is just a series of noises. Information has no existence. In other words, to be consistent a libertarian must claim that only a physical violation is illegal. A rapist who threatens his victim with a knife will not be convicted in court unless he physically hurts his victim because he will claim that the knife is his and he was taking it for a walk. Sure, he uttered a few words about killing the poor woman if she did not obey him, but they were just sounds and it is her own fault if she interpreted those noises as threatening."
Yep, this person sure does understand libertarianism and the anti-IP faction's arguments. On that note I think I'll go write me an article on relativity theory, which I know nothing about. Terrible article, though at least it was somewhat amusing in its absurdity.
Copyrights and patents are concepts of a different nature compared to trade secrets, contracts, and fraud. If he can't understand that then he won't understand the Kinsellian (o gee whiz I just made a new adjective) objection to IP, it's not even worth talking to.
Good article, and nicely written. As humans move away from primitive physical labor and toward more intellectual endeavors, the intangible also becomes more consequential thus more subjectively valued. If X is subjectively valued, the concept of property in X (to he extent that ownership boundaries can be easily demarcated) yields more of it.
Z.
Can you explain why intellectual property concepts are of a different nature compared to trade secrets, contracts and fraud? Why is owning trade secrets or personal secrets different from owning the contents of a book? If you have a clear understanding of what the difference is then you should easily be able to state it in succinct terms.
The arguments in that article are weak, but I still don't agree with the anti-IP stance from what I've read, although I have not read "too much" on the subject. I'm not convinced when it comes to fictional works like books and screenplays that people should be able to make adaptations or sell the books/screenplays without my permission if I'm the author.
They are obviously different in the very laws that interpret them today... if there were no distinction, then there could be a single law code named "IP law", and treat everything alike. But it's not the case. They are different in what context they apply, in what mediums are used, on the consequences thereof, etc. etc. etc.
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
I don't have a complete understanding but I know enough to say that conflating IP with contracts is a b***s**t argument. No one "owns" the contract, the contract is merely a formal agreement.
The "IP doesn't exist, then information doesn't exist, then contracts can't exist" is a huge non-sequitur at best...
The case of a nameless redeemable contract or note in no way obligates the current owner in doing anything. Me giving you a concert ticket allows you to go to the concert in my stead, but it doesn't oblige you to. You can even tear the ticket apart, even if I wrote "zomg don't tear it!" on it. That's because an agreement was never made.
And finally, his use of declaratory law begs the question, because anything that becomes law... is law. The question is whether these laws should be recognized, whether should the concepts underlying them should be recognized. So far, I'm convinced IP is garbage and unecessary.
Thanks for the link, yuberries.
I'm not very familiar with IP either, so I think the ensuing debate will be very enlightening.
However, I do have a question: Why is it not a breach of contract to redistribute intangibles if you consent implicitly or explicitly to the terms of the agreement which are attached to the intangible?
There can't be such a thing as implicit agreement, and it isn't even what today's IP-restrictive law relies on. If an author publishes a book named "whoever picks up this book must give me five dollars", and you pick it up after reading it, is that an implicit agreement, and you now have to give him five dollars? No, that's ridiculous. The same can be said of copyright. Copyright law doesn't rely on that anyway, it just confers the owner the monopoly on presentation and distribution, nothing to do with what the article in the OP in my opinion.
The only types of mutual agreements are those very much ingrained in tradition, like paying for a coffee cup, store checkouts, etc.
... maybe even taxes in a sense LOL
If a book clearly stated upon its face that by purchasing it, you would have to abide by a list of stated terms, then I don't quite see how that is invalid at all.
This would be an example of an adhesion contract, which is well established in the common law.
Onar Åm:Can you explain why intellectual property concepts are of a different nature compared to trade secrets, contracts and fraud? Why is owning trade secrets or personal secrets different from owning the contents of a book? If you have a clear understanding of what the difference is then you should easily be able to state it in succinct terms.
You can't own any of them. Just as you can't meaningfully "own" your opinion of a food, or your love for another person.
I'd like you to succinctly articulate what property is, because without a concept of property, ownership is meaningless.
MrSchnapps: If a book clearly stated upon its face that by purchasing it, you would have to abide by a list of stated terms, then I don't quite see how that is invalid at all. This would be an example of an adhesion contract, which is well established in the common law.
I didn't purchase it, I merely picked it up.
Obviously if a purchase goes on, there's more than enough opportunity to make such agreements clear. That's not what IP proponents want. They want some type of loophole that allows them to collect tribute for merely reading, listening, touching their junk.
Replace the title of "whoever picks up this book must give me five dollars" to "whoever reads this line must give me five dollars". Then you plaster it on billboards on busy streets.. oh damn....
I better go patent that idea ASAP. Making billions, BRB.
First he says "Contract law was different from today in that it was only possible to make legally binding agreement between named parties".
Then he says "the legal framework that is needed to implement intellectual property rights is 1) contracts with unnamed, unspecified parties, effectively rendering contracts into property, 2) liens which allow contractual restrictions to be codified into property and 3) declaratory laws which allow the restrictions to apply also to people who acquire such property by non-contractual. Anyone who wishes to attack intellectual property rights must therefore also attack these three legal constructs in general. This effectively renders rule of law impossible".
Presenting us with a scenario in which none of his precious legal constructs existed and then stating that such a situation would make the "rule of law impossible" is totally not a contradiction. Someone needs to go back in time to "England in the late medieval period" and tell them that the rule of law is impossible, and that the Kingdom of England, and its legal code will never survive the 300 or so years required to enact copyright legislation.
.
I'm gona make a Mises/Rothbard dedicated site all about how much the world needs the welfare/warfare state
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Government protection of IP and copyrights is terrible, as far as I'm concerned. All it does is raise the prices of things and protection of it is so arbitrary that it's really kind of ridiculous.
I never signed a contract not to sell my neighbour's car either.
The point is: my neighbour has the right to his car, and the author of the book has the right to the content of the book (i.e. the information; not only the physical cover, the sheets of paper and the ink that constitute it, as materialists like marxists and libertarians would argue).
We have rights to protect our opportunity for long-time work.
do you have ownership rights in peoples opinion of your book ? if not why not?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
the author of the book has the right to the content of the book
And when someone else copies this information, how are they depriving the author of the right to that content? He still has that right. They are no more depriving him of it than I would be depriving my neighbor of his right to his car by building my own a working replica of it.
On the existence of information:
Every existent in the universe is a limited, finite resource. You only have so and so much iron, water or energy etc. But according to the libertarian anti-IP argument information is a non-finite resource. It is not used up. Well, clearly then it does not exist in the universe, because the universe only consists of finite resources. To be is to be something. Everything has an identity, a nature, which means to be a finite thing. Information doesn't fit the bill.
THEREFORE anti-IP libertarians conclude that there should be no intellectual property rights. It ain't a finite resource, ergo it can't be owned.
Are you with me so far? Well, the major problem with this line of reasoning is that information has no existence except as a state of mind. Information only exists in the mind. Information is a mind object. Now, while information in itself is not limited resource, minds most certainly are. Intellectual property rights are rightly so named because they do not really pertain to information but to the intellect. Since you only have a certain limited amount of hours in your life to think and produce with that mind, it is the product of your mind that should be protected through intellectual property rights.
Now, the very moment you understand that information is a mind object then you also understand why there must exist information rights (of which intellectual property is one). We humans are mind beings more than anything. The thing that distinguishes us from other beings is precisely our great minds, and our ability to abstract. What is this thing that we abstract? Information! That is why animals cannot enter into a contract. Contracts only exist in the abstract, as objects to a conceptual consciousness. Information rights is about protecting a HUMAN existence, an existence as an abstract, conceptual consciousness. There are things that are very important to such a consciousness: truth and falsehood, agreement, the secrecy of personal information (privacy) and ownership of mental products. The common denominator is that they all pertain to the human mind.
Now, marxists are full-blown materialists so they deny the mind altogether, and hence they deny ALL forms of private property, including material property because the basis of all property is the CHOICE to mix one's labor with nature, and this requires free will, which any materialist denies. Libertarians are not as good at philosophy as marxists so they fail to understand the philosophical position they are taking and they end up with a half-baked, inconsistent materialist position on IP.
But to fully grasp the nature of IP and of information rights in general one must start with the human mind and recognize that the human condition revolves around the mind. All information rights flow from the same source: the mind.
On property:
What is property? Property is that which you legally have soverign control over, and by "legal" I mean that which you can use physical force to protect. So if you have full legal control over another person's body and life you OWN that person. He is your property. This is known as slavery. The classical liberal position is based on PEACEFUL property rights. That is, property which does not involve violating the lives of other peaceful people. So using your own gun to rob a bank is not a peaceful exercise of property, and hence banned from laissez-faire. The same goes with piracy. If you buy a book you are free to do whatever you want with that book, except to pirate and distribute the mind stuff of that book. Then you are violating the work of another peaceful person.
kwalla:We have rights to protect our opportunity for long-time work.
You have no right to future exchanges nor particular future prices except as explicitly contracted with another actor.
Onar Åm:On property: What is property? Property is that which you legally have soverign control over, and by "legal" I mean that which you can use physical force to protect.
What is property? Property is that which you legally have soverign control over, and by "legal" I mean that which you can use physical force to protect.
Anyone can use force. The use of force doesn't make something legal. You'll need to rework this.
Also, control is not equal to ownership. A thief can steal to get control, and then use force to maintain control. Surely you do not believe that theft is equal to property?
Onar Åm:The classical liberal position is based on PEACEFUL property rights. That is, property which does not involve violating the lives of other peaceful people.n.
I'm not sure what you mean by peaceful property rights, is there such a thing as violent (?) property rights? Anarcho-capitalists believe that aggression is immoral and only voluntary relations are acceptable in a free society and that free markets are only possible when trade is voluntary.
Onar Åm:So using your own gun to rob a bank is not a peaceful exercise of property, and hence banned from laissez-faire.
Maybe this is a language thing, but its not banned from laissez-faire, it is contradictory to laissez-faire, and so is not a part of laissez-faire.
Some of us would say that using force to acquire property is immoral.
Onar Åm:If you buy a book you are free to do whatever you want with that book, except to pirate and distribute the mind stuff of that book.
What is "the mind stuff"?
Also, if I share the information in that book, I have not pirated anything. The information is still in the book, and it is still in the author's head. I have simply made a copy of some or all of the information.
Onar Åm:Then you are violating the work of another peaceful person.
If I am contractually obligated at the time of sale, to handle the book and its contents a certain way, that is fine. But if you mean that if someone relays information to me from a book that I have received stolen property, then that is completely ridiculous.
There is a wealth of information on this site deconstructing the conventional notion of intellectual property and explaining how it is anathema to laissez-faire and individual liberty. If you would like resources, I would be happy to find some for you.
Onar Åm:On the existence of information:...
Onar, you bring up some fresh angles. IP has been debated in many (long) threads here before, easily accessible via the search function. Particularly, you may find my case for Information as Property interesting.
"do you have ownership rights in peoples opinion of your book ? if not why not?"
No. Why would I?
"And when someone else copies this information, how are they depriving the author of the right to that content? He still has that right.
The value of the book is not in its material, the value is in the information. The author therefore has the right to decide how his work should be made accessible to others as well as the right to decide whether others may use that work. The author didn't write his book so that he could print a bunch of letters on his own personal and physical paper.
well they wouldn't have opinions about your book if not for your having authored the book...
why are people not allowed to make doubles of your book, but they are allowed to think about it? You make an argument for ownership of the intangible so your theory should cover both. Your theory argues for too much.
Onar, how do we know that everything in the universe is limited? What if the universe is infinite?
I think it's quite obvious that what he means is legitimate force.
Also here, it's obvious that he means legitimate control. Libertarians believe that legitimate control over intellectual work does not exist. They only recognize physical work. That makes them physical capitalists but intellectual communists.
Brilliant essay that makes my points against intellectual communism mostly obsolete. The author makes all defenders of intellectual communism appear unread and juvenile, which they are.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
why are people not allowed to make doubles of your book, but they are allowed to think about it? You make an argument for ownership of the intangible so your theory should cover both. Your theory argues for too much.
Because the author allows one but not the other in order to maximize the value of his product.
Evidently, you are not required to impose a lien on any of your books and screenplay. You can define yourself what the terms of use of your property are. This is why contracts like Creative Commons exist.
What's immoral is denying others the right to restrict the use of their property because you personally don't want to restrict yours. That is just monopolism.
Kwalla, have you ever observed anything in the universe that is infinite? If not, then there is no rational basis for believing in it.
Stranger:Brilliant essay that makes my points against intellectual communism mostly obsolete.
Your points were obselete because they were based on logical fallacies to begin with.
well, everything is limited is like saying, everything has a beginning (when creationists try to prove their god)... begs the question at least :)
It could be ok to say, that material things are scarce. But information is not.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
everything has a begining (when creationists try to prove their god)... begs the question at least :)
First of all, there's no question begging going on.
Second, I can't think of one defender of any cosmological argument that actually claims that 'everything has a beginning.'
Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, and not Richard Swinburne.
That's about the biggest strawman I've ever seen. HE'S HUGE, MAN.
Anarcho-capitalists believe that aggression is immoral
But it's not. Aggression is moral in self defense. Not only to protect your own physical body and belongings, but also to protect information.
The non-aggression principle is the source of anarcho-capitalist morality, but morality has its true source in biology, not in a principle.
The information is still in the book, and it is still in the author's head.
Authors don't write books to keep the information in their head.
why are people not allowed to make doubles of your book, but they are allowed to think about it?
If they weren't allowed to think about it, they wouldn't buy it.
Libertarians are not as good at philosophy as marxists so they fail to understand the philosophical position they are taking and they end up with a half-baked, inconsistent materialist position on IP.
There are no words.
MrSchnapps: everything has a begining (when creationists try to prove their god)... begs the question at least :) First of all, there's no question begging going on. Second, I can't think of one defender of any cosmological argument that actually claims that 'everything has a beginning.' Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, and not Richard Swinburne. That's about the biggest strawman I've ever seen. HE'S HUGE, MAN.
You are right, I a little bit strawman'ed it. It goes like this: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. And yep, it begs the quesion. The Universe began to exist. It begs the question. It could be eternal (and I believe, just believe, it IS eternal in some sense). Therefore, the Universe had a cause. It could have a cause, but that doesn't mean that this "cause" didn't have some other cause... Even if it didn't, it doesn't mean, that this cause is "god".
Sorry for offtopic. Mea culpa.
Onar Åm:Kwalla, have you ever observed anything in the universe that is infinite? If not, then there is no rational basis for believing in it.
As for physical objects, you're right. But is everything in the universe finite, including time and space? I find it hard to believe that time has a start or an end.
Objects can be finite without having a start or an end - they are called indefinite. The Earth, for example, is a sphere with upon which surface you can walk indefinitely. However, it is still a finite object.
Stranger:Because the author allows one but not the other in order to maximize the value of his product.
If your statement were in any way true then we would not purchase books from bookstores, but rent instead. It amazes me that you don't follow your comments to their ends.
Last I visited a book store it was not required of me to sign any type of rent agreement, instead it was sold to me as a purchase of a physical,tangible good. The same as purchasing a banana or apple. I've made no such agreements on what I plan on doing with that book. If what you say is true, then I should instead be signing a lease agreement regarding the use of the book.
Even when renting however it's not clear that anything has been violated in copying. But thats besides the point I am making. I purchase books, I don't rent them. If this is not the case then I've simply been lied to, and thats just basic fraud. I suppose in some twisted manner your going to justify the fraud now?