Maxliberty: However, your position is that copying data is not any form of damage because data can not be owned. So your argument prevents the copying of data being used as damages. If no one is injured by copying data then it is not a source of damages.
However, your position is that copying data is not any form of damage because data can not be owned. So your argument prevents the copying of data being used as damages. If no one is injured by copying data then it is not a source of damages.
My argument in no way prevents the copying of data being used as damages if it has been discovered and revealed via physical aggression, Which it has in this case. Same for mental anguish, etc... Its the foundation of physical property is the key. By trespassing you are now open to be prosecuted for the "harm" you have caused, which is whatever can be reasonably determined.
Maxliberty:If I steal a car and it is not your car then you can not claim damages mental or otherwise, because it is not yours. If the data isn't yours then having it copied causes no harm.
That is a false analogy. As you own the house thats being invaded, not the car. The foundation isn't there.
it is not because of ' non-physical harms' that.trespassing is bad and to be avoided
its a physical crime. its the invasion of a property border. hence its badness.
I can't assume along with you that there are 'non-physical' damages of any kind; you will have to tell me more about them....
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
nirgrahamUK: it is not because of ' non-physical harms' that.trespassing is bad and to be avoided its a physical crime. its the invasion of a property border. hence its badness.
I agree, "Its entire foundation rests on the violation of (physical) property." That hardly implies that by trespassing there aren't liabilities beyond physical destruction.
nirgrahamUK:I can't assume along with you that there are 'non-physical' damages of any kind; you will have to tell me more about them....
Mental anguish for one. By violating my property, you have affected me both physically and mentally. Why shouldn't you be held responsible for the harms what you have clearly caused?
Angurse:I agree, "Its entire foundation rests on the violation of (physical) property." That hardly implies that by trespassing there aren't liabilities beyond physical destruction.
We are not discussing whether mental anguish/trauma is a legitimate claim. We are discussing a matter of property. If information is not property and you do not own it then you can not claim damages when it is copied regardless of how it is obtained. There are no damages for copying data if you are consistent on your view of IP. Data in your view is not the same as a physical object, it can not be owned and copying it does not deprive you of the use of it. Your only legitimate claim, if you and your fellow Kinsella kool aid drinkers are consistent, is a claim for basic trespassing and whatever damage to property that may have been caused, which by your own definition can not include any data.
Simple trespass cases where no violence or threat of violence against a person exists and no property damage occurs have very little case for damages. That is just simple common sense and I would think we could stipulate that in general this would be true.
Maxliberty: We are not discussing whether mental anguish/trauma is a legitimate claim. We are discussing a matter of property. If information is not property and you do not own it then you can not claim damages when it is copied regardless of how it is obtained. There are no damages for copying data if you are consistent on your view of IP. Data in your view is not the same as a physical object, it can not be owned and copying it does not deprive you of the use of it. Your only legitimate claim, if you and your fellow Kinsella kool aid drinkers are consistent, is a claim for basic trespassing and whatever damage to property that may have been caused, which by your own definition can not include any data.
Yes we are. If mental anguish/trauma is a legitimate claim, then so too is any profits lost. Neither are physical data, but due to physical violations on the part of the trespasser, damages have been made. And he must be accountable. I could care less what the "Kinsella Kool aid drinkers" say. I've made it clear multiple times now.
"My argument in no way prevents the copying of data being used as damages if it has been discovered and revealed via physical aggression, Which it has in this case. Same for mental anguish, etc... Its the foundation of physical property is the key. By trespassing you are now open to be prosecuted for the "harm" you have caused, which is whatever can be reasonably determined."
Maxliberty:Simple trespass cases where no violence or threat of violence against a person exists and no property damage occurs have very little case for damages. That is just simple common sense and I would think we could stipulate that in general this would be true.
And this clearly isn't a case of "simple trespass."
Angurse:Yes we are. If mental anguish/trauma is a legitimate claim, then so too is any profits lost. Neither are physical data, but due to physical violations on the part of the trespasser, damages have been made. And he must be accountable. I could care less what the "Kinsella Kool aid drinkers" say. I've made it clear multiple times now.
How can you claim on the one hand that any one can copy data without it being a violation or loss of your profits but then say the hacker or rogue employee has to pay damages? Damages for what? Mental anguish of what.....someone copying your data? You can't claim loss of property in your view. From your perspective the copying of data is no different than the trespasser breathing the air in the room. Are you made whole if the trespasser gives back the data? What recourse do you have if the hacker gave the data to a third party?
Angurse:Mental anguish for one. By violating my property, you have affected me both physically and mentally. Why shouldn't you be held responsible for the harms what you have clearly caused?
you dont have a property right in good feelings any more than good ideas.
Maxliberty:How can you claim on the one hand that any one can copy data without it being a violation or loss of your profits but then say the hacker or rogue employee has to pay damages? Damages for what? Mental anguish of what.....someone copying your data? You can't claim loss of property in your view.
As the trespasser is TRESPASSING. Unlike someone who retro-engineers a pair of sneakers he has purchased, the trespasser has no authority to be on the property, therefore he is responsible for any outcome as it otherwise wouldn't have occurred. I'm not claiming loss of property. I wouldn't have mental anguish if you didn't break into my home. I'd have sold my idea if you didn't break into my home. Its the same thing.
Maxliberty:From your perspective the copying of data is no different than the trespasser breathing the air in the room. Are you made whole if the trespasser gives back the data? What recourse do you have if the hacker gave the data to a third party?
If it was special air, or air that I can reasonably show had a profound effect on my life that has now been altered due to your invasion, sure. And you can never be made whole, if you kill my mum, no form of punishment can fix the situation. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be prosecuted.
nirgrahamUK:you dont have a property right in good feelings any more than good ideas.
Never said you did. By trespassing, the aggressor has created a state of uncertainty. It must be rectified.
you don't have a right to states of certainty, you just have a right to your property. this allows you to self-defend, until you are made whole (in the property sense, not in psychological sense). when the score is settled any uncertainty or psychic whatevers are by-the-by.
nirgrahamUK:you don't have a right to states of certainty, you just have a right to your property. this allows you to self-defend, until you are made whole (in the property sense, not in psychological sense). when the score is settled any uncertainty or psychic whatevers are by-the-by.
You cannot be made whole in either sense. If I chop your arm off, thats it. Taking mine won't make you whole, nothing will. If I kill your mum, there is nothing you can get out of me to fix the situation...ever. The score can only be settled when all effects are fully accounted for (obviously that is also an impossibility but its better).
You have the right to think whatever you want. What takes place in your head is your business. So you cannot own an idea. However, you can patent the right to implement your ideas. You cannot patent the wheel of course, but you can patent for example a wheel with a particular surface coated rubber.
Why is this kind property rights ok when it comes to abstract things? Because thinking takes work, and you own what you mix your labour with. For exampple, it takes a lot of work to write a book. Not typing the letters, but formulating the sentences. Then it's unfair that anyone should be able to scan the text and make money on it or just hand it out. That would undermine the author's right to govern his own intellectual work.
If the book says that you cannot copy it, then you cannot. It's a contract with the author.
alimentarius: If the book says that you cannot copy it, then you cannot. It's a contract with the author.
That doesn't necessarily constitute a contract in any way.
In particular, even if you have a contract with the author, someone else who sees the content of your book is under no contract not to copy it.
Why anarchy fails