I claim that piracy is a form of coercion, a form of aggression, which I am against too. It's not sufficient to make a claim, you have to substantiate it.
It's funny that you make a claim and then say it's not enough to do that but one must also provide an argument while simultaneously failing to do exactly that. Piracy is coercion how? It's not because I'm not initiating violence or making threats on your property. That's the argument.
The same argument can be made against a contract. One who breaches a contract is not initiating violence or making threats on your property. Clearly then, since you think that contracts are valid, this argument of yours is not SUFFICIENT, because in the cases of threats and contracts another more important argument trumps it. I am saying exactly the same thing when it comes to intellectual property. There is a more important argument that trumps your "I'm not initating violence or making threats on your PHYSICAL property" and that is that the author has mixed his labor with nature to create something REAL that is of value: a book. Just like a contract or a threat, that thing does not exist in physical space. It exists ONLY in information space of consciousness. Mental work should be protected by property right, just as much as physical work, and this is so important that it trumps the argument that you can do whatever you want with your physical property so long as you don't initiatie violence against your PHYSICAL being or property.
Also, I can deny that I am making threats. When I am saying "give me all your money or I will kill you" I am not physically harming you in any way.
You're not making any sense. Making a threat doesn't require that you are currently causing me physical harm, it's the promise of FUTURE physical harm.
I completely agree that it doesn't make any sense, just like piracy doesn't require that you are causing me physical harm, but rather take away FUTURE revenue from my mental work.
That's what a threat is. Please take your time and try to make more coherent responses. This is bordering on absurd.
Notice that whenever you say that I am making an absurd argument I am simply taking all the arguments that anti-IP people are using and adapting them to other similar situations. Of course they absurd, just like the anti-IP arguments are absurd, it's just that in other areas YOU TOO see that these arguments are absurd. I am glad to see that you are arguing against these absurd arguments in just the way IP-proponents argue against anti-IP-arguments. Hopefully this will spur in you some reflection on why that is, and maybe consider if your position on IP is absurd too. (I think it is)