Quote from: kelp on April 02, 2011, 04:33:50 AM

Quote from: onarchy on April 02, 2011, 04:21:20 AM

If implicit contracts are not valid then this means that if you DON'T wear that sign one day, for some reason, then it is perfectly ok for anyone to kill you. They can simply say "I didn't agree not to kill him, and he didn't say it wasn't ok." Sane people understand that life would be unbearable without such implicit contracts, and copyright law is simply one of these implicit contracts. Copyright COULD be implemented with a sign on the book stating "by opening this book you agree not to spread the content of this book to anyone" or if that is not acceptable then even sign an explicit contract with the seller that you will not spread the content of that book.

In short, none of the standard arguments against IP leads to a sane world because of the logical implications it has for other laws and rights.

Did you really just argue that not having IP laws is a slippery slope to allowing murder?

Not a slippery slope, no. I made a principled argument. I.e. if IP laws (implicit information contracts) are not legitimate, then obviously NO implicit contract laws are legitimate. I.e. if you claim that IP laws are illegitimate because they are implicit contracts you MUST also argue that it is illegitimate to make a law with the implicit contract that bans killing someone. It's not a slippery slope argument, but a reductio ad absurdum argument. Any argument that makes it morally ok to kill someone unless you have an explicit contract is obviously insane.