I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.
Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.
No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.
Both statements can be true.
I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit. You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit.
Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes.
Are you using your own hardware? Yes.
Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass? Yes. And if you have a problem with that, I don't care. Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine.
Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property".
I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of my sites I please with no repercussions.
Your society's whims you call laws have nothing on a man or his property who cannot be found nor coerced.
That's really irrelevant as you can only get people who would never have paid anyway that way. At the end of the day, you will be out of pocket and I won't have lost a penny. But at least you are honest in saying that your main concern is finding a way to take the product of other people's labour off them instead of having to work yourself.
What IP law prevents is you openly reselling protected property and making a huge profit. If a drug costs $100 million to make, and sells for $1 per tablet, you can make a $billion selling it for 90 cents and the guy who invested the $100 million will be screwed. Since we actively want to encourage development of new drugs, the law doesn't' allow you to openly do that.
So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be
hated for their success. Lovely.
Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_BurzynskiIn a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.
So moot point.
You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.