This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. 'There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.

There's a quote from a Robert Heinlein short story that seems to be fitting for the right to profit moral argument. I don't know how you would punish without laws like SOPA though. I remember reading an analogy somewhere that fighting file-sharing technology is like a captain of a leaking and sinking wooden ship in the middle of the ocean ordering his cannons to fire at the ocean in protest. I can't claim to have a right to tell the new owner what to do (or more likely, what not to do) with their property. So yes, I believe I have a right to a product I made with my ideas, but once I sell that product, this is a trade and I no longer own it. My view of property is based on universal self-ownership. If assuming that most lost sales isn't worth the scandle or investments in DRM but it probably depends on the situation. Isn't the the biggest issue with piracy? That people can do the crime but avoid punishment. In the end it's not a law or morality that defines what we own, that's just civilized shields, but the force we have to keep others from taking it. Nirth_90: Ah, the philosophy behind ownership, that's a tricky one.

Mcpixel ip