Comment: I don't even know if scarcity is the main issue

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: IP creates "scarcity" (see in situ)

I don't even know if scarcity is the main issue

The reality is that IP is not a legitimate contract. If you actually sign an explicit contract that says "I agree not to copy this" then you're legally obligated to follow through regardless of whether ideas are a scarce good or not. But when you buy something are you legally obligated to agree to everything the packaging says? Going by this logic I could sell products to people and put "By purchasing this product you agree to have sex with me" in small print at the bottom. Would those who bought the item be legally obligated to follow through with that?

And then the argument that even if you're not someone who bought the product with this so-called implicit contract printed on it, you're still somehow in violation of someone's property rights by merely owning a copy that you obtained from somebody else? Because they declared that they are the sole person who's allowed to own the ideas? Makes no sense. Somehow a mere declaration of property ownership backed by nothing constitutes a valid property right now? What kind of logic is that?

In this sense I guess the scarcity issue is very important because even if the supposed implicit agreement of the purchaser not copying and distributing the copyrighted item is legitimate, any third party who did not agree to anything with the manufacturer is in no violation of their rights for owning and distributing copies themselves. Because even if the copyright is a legitimate contract between the producer and buyer, that doesn't make it a property right. They don't have the right to declare that anyone who happens to end up with a copy is in violation of their rights, only the person who *agreed* not to make a copy.