Content is content, whether it is published or not. I am arguing that people don't have an abitrary right to someone else's content.

If I make a movie and charge someone to watch it, and offer them some form of time based encryption keys and special software to allow them to watch it, have I published my content? Does someone else have a fundamental right to watch that content? I say that they don't.

If someone can find a way to record or copy it, then good for them, it's my fault for not having a strong enough protection mechanism. They are using their own property to make a copy. The only way to content producers can sop this is to technically prevent copying. That's like trying to stop water from flowing downhill.

You're arguing my case - what you've just said is exactly the way I see it too. Which is why I disagree with very concept of copyright. Copyright limits what people can do with their own property, and I don't believe the state should have the power or authority to place such limits.

Content is content. My point is that one person doesn't have a right to the content created by someone else unless that someone else gives them permission.

You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.

You make it sound like you have a fundamental right to content someone else produces. You don't.

If the content producer doesn't give you permission to view the content, then you don't have a legal right to view it.

It's not theft, so there is no comparison.

I don't agree with copytight law or patent law. Copyright law prevents people from using their own property in any way their wish to. E.g. Copyright law prevents me from using my pen and my paper to write out my fabourite novel. I don't think the state should have the power to tell me what I can do with my pen and my paper. A similar argument can be made with regards to bits in a computer.

But if someone has produced content and for whatever reason they don't want me to view it, then the honourable thing for me to do is to not view it. It's not about lawm, it's about ethics.

If something is not available to you legally then it is not available to you. Nobody has a fundamental right to the content that others create.

If the producer of content has decided not to offer their content in your region, then you have no right to have it. It's their content, not yours. There is no fundamental right to the content someone else has created. As owners of the content it's completely up to them who is allowed to view it.

I see what you did there.

I thought it was very nerdy, and very interesting too.

Can we finally solve the age old question as to whether the seat should be left up or down? This is a function based on how many males vs females there are, and how often a male needs to, er, sit.

Inches? How archaic.

Sugar is poison. A 1.5l bottle of Coke has 5 days worth of recommended sugar in it. It's shocking to see children drinking this stuff.

The salesman has permission via their employment to sell the car. It's still a transaction between the buyer and the salesperson. The money doesn't so to the salesperson's account, but that's irrelevant.

An individual should be able to voluntarily trade with another. A company should be able to voluntarily trade with another company, or another individual. The state should not be involved.

Back to my point: land of the free indeed.

No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.