Will you kindly share with us a copy of all your computers, devices and digital records or are you going to continue to restrict our freedom?

I don't think that works - the freedom he's talking about is the freedom of the person who owns the computers, devices and digital records.

In the world of IP and copyright law, the ownership rights that go with owning a piece of media with particular patterns are restricted. You are not allowed to dispose of the patterns on a DVD as you might wish despite supposedly 'owning' it. This is clearly a difference from previously understood models of what ownership was.

> The ordinary subjects of property are well known, and easily conceived . . . But property, when applied to ideas, or literary and intellectual compositions, is perfectly new and surprising . . . by far the most comprehensive denomination of it would be a property in nonsense - Lord Gardenston 1773

"You think books having a cost is a restriction of your freedom? Why? And why books, but not your work?"

"Because copying information from one computer to another costs nothing (except for the electricity and internet access). Any attempt to restrict that capability is restricting your freedom."

Why books, and not his work?

Why do you think the author of the comment is not applying the same principle to themselves? I assume that they either have a job where they don't need the government to restrict other peoples rights of freedom of speech in order to get paid, or that they do apply it to themselves.

I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone must make all digital information freely available to everyone else. Nobody is saying that books must be provided for free. The argument is that nobody should be restricted from sharing their data if that's what they want to do. That will naturally result in most widely shared digital files being made available for free, but it's because those with them exercised a right to share rather than because anyone was compelled to do anything.

> The argument is that nobody should be restricted from sharing their files if that's what they want to do.

Don't you want to restrict people from sharing their files - even if that's what they want to do - when those files are things like your banking documents or medical records?

> Don't you want to restrict people from sharing their files - even if that's what they want to do - when those files are things like your banking documents or medical records?

Yeah, I'm not strongly arguing for this view, merely arguing that it genuinely does represent a restriction on freedom (sometimes restrictions on freedom are sensible, although in this case I think it'd be better to try to find other ways to solve the problems of recompensing creators).

If I have to take a stance on it, I'd probably say that people sharing personal and private information on me without my permission (and by the way credit agencies, governments, friends with facebook accounts and advertising companies do in fact do this) should be treated as a separate issue, and considered much more under laws against harassment or libel (which are themselves restrictions on freedom of speech too!) or perhaps breach of contract.

I'm not even sure banking documents or medical records actually fall under copyright - and if they do, I don't think the copyright belongs to the patient, so I don't think it's copyright that is used in these cases anyway.

Ok. By the way I don't suggest that those examples are related to copyright. They were about the more general "The argument is that nobody should be restricted from sharing their data if that's what they want to do." There are many reasons why people is being restricted from "sharing their data".

Pricing something beyond its marginal cost of delivery is a restriction on your freedom? I suppose it’s true, in the way not being allowed to punch someone is a restriction on your freedom.

> Pricing something beyond its marginal cost of delivery is a restriction on your freedom?

No. Choosing to price something you own beyond its marginal cost of delivery is not a restriction on freedom.

What is a restriction on freedom is not allowing others to take something they have (a collection of words / pattern of bits / a SD card / a hard disk) and choose to give that away to others. The fact that in an internet-connected world allowing that will result in most people being able to acquire most files for no more than their marginal cost of delivery is a result of freedom, not a restriction on it.

It seems extremely unlikely that you can keep the price on any widely distributed collection of bits much above 0 for an appreciable length of time without governments intervening to remove that freedom of sharing and copying from people.

Copying a file doesn't hurt anyone.

Will you kindly share with us a copy of all your computers, devices and digital records? Copying those files doesn't hurt anyone.

No, I will not. Why would I?

Freedom to copy != obligation to copy.

Your arguments are erroneous, at best.

I'm trying to establish what your argument is.

So if I get hold of your files somehow I have the freedom to copy, right?

If I had not shared the files with you, and they cannot be found in a public database, then the only way you could have obtained my files is through illegal means, such as breaking into my house or planting malware on my computer. In that case, the issue of sharing those files is beyond the point, since you already invaded my privacy and broke the law.

If I had shared a file with you, however, then you should feel free to share it with others as much as you'd like.