Obviously copyright infringement, under every main stream school of thought is wrong. You put work into creating something, such as a video file that is a movie that you spent millions of dollars to produce, and you therefore have, according to every main stream school of thought, the right to sell that video file for a profit.

I'm clarifying that I understand this, and that I realize it's common sense, but I have the sneaking suspicion that if I were to question one of the leading proponents of copyright infringement, for example an operator of The Piriate Bay, and member/founder of a pro-copyright-infringement religion, Kopimism, I would receive some form of very thoroughly thought out philosophical reasoning for supporting copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, I dont have the privilege of being able to have a discussion with such a person, in order to poke and prod for logical, fundamental reasoning for such support. I'm very curious though, to discover and dissect the arguments behind this school of thought, so I ask:

Does anyone know what philosophical arguments / logic copyright infringement supporters, use to defend and promote their position?

  • You might start from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
    – user9166
    Mar 24, 2016 at 23:08
  • Do you know Pablo Neruda's Ode to Bread? Also, the "right to copy" individually does not finish the Theatrical Experience, so there's still room for profit. And remember that the comercial distrubution system has no room for all the industry creates.
    – Rodrigo
    Mar 26, 2016 at 17:43
  • "Unjust enrichment" might be applicable?
    – Guill
    Mar 29, 2016 at 1:54

1 Answer 1


One commonly used thread is to emphasize that ideas/information are very different sorts of things from physical goods and our treatment of these two types of things should be different on that basis. One "obvious fact" here is that: When I provide you with my physical item, (in most cases) I can no longer benefit from the use of that item. When I provide you with an idea, we both can continue to use and benefit from that idea. The fact that ideas don't have a problem of scarcity or depletion means that we should not apply the same ethical considerations to them as to physical goods.

From this seed, whose core is focus on the ideas/information themselves and not on how it is transmitted, flowers more general considerations of freedom of thought and freedom of expression; two natural rights that are obvious moral goods. I've read something, I have new ideas related to that work, why should the now dead original author be able to reach out from the grave and constrain what I can say? This is the basis of libertarian arguments against copyright.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .