Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5892187" data-attributes="member: 19675">I realize that.  And I understand that people see theft of IP kind of like theft of fire- the owner still has the same stuff he had before the theft, so how is he harmed?In the eyes of the law, the unauthorized exercise of control of the property is what defines the theft, not whether the property is actually removed- even for physical property.  And the law does not care WHY you exercised the unauthorized control, merely that the control that was exercised was not authorized.Ethically & legally, the harm is in the interference with the IP holder's property rights, which includes the right not to have the property used by others at all- also derived from physical property rights.The right to exclude others is one of the cornerstone rights of property.  It lets the owner build upon his creation, if he so chooses, or to enjoy it by himself to the exclusion of all others.  It is one of the reasons property has value at all.IP law simply chooses not to divorce that fundamental right from the bundle of rights merely because it is intangible.  And I think, if nothing else, this lets the law apply the same rules without struggling to create new rules.It is my position that unbundling the right of exclusion from IP would render it unprotectable in a court of law and thus, valueless.</blockquote>