Hacker News Reader

But it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration.

The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.

View on HN

Perhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others.

If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice?

Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.

> If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost?

But if it wasn't worth something, you wouldn't do it.

So the person that created it wants a certain value, and the person copying it wants to copy it but doesn't want to pay that value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com