which is no less a belief structure than a religious one.
How does disbelief inherit structure? You can have a structure of opposing belief based on atheism which may become a religion but atheism itself isn't the religion in that case. You could even call it atheism, but it would be Atheism rather than atheism.
Lack of a belief is a 'disbelief' by definition. If I say, "I do not believe in hell" and a priest states that I will go to hell, then his statements are directly against my belief that there is no hell, and instructing me that I will go there is blasphemous because it is against my religious beliefs.
No, you can have a lack of belief without believing the opposite. Your disbelief is contrary to their belief but not necessarily contrary to what they believe in.
atheism is more than simply lack of belief in a deity. consider some definitions:
If you wish to play with dictionaries, lets use your obviously infallible friend Webster (I'm British, I feel I must point out my use of sarcasm is because Webster is famous for re-writing the English language), and follow the path you have laid to one of its possible conclusions:
Atheism: 2a - a disbelief in the existence of deity.
Disbelief: the act of disbelieving.
Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief.
Therefore, you've just cherry-picked the definition to suit your argument. It isn't even a case of you cherry picking your source, your damn source contradicts you. If you'd bothered to widen your field of reference then you'd have found many references to atheism being a mere lack of belief in both dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
It seems to me like the dog-eat-dog mentality. While I can respect such principles if genuine, I have to suspect that they only take that position when they are the bigger dog or when it's not their puppy being eaten.
As someone who helps people who get into financial trouble I would also point out that the majority of them are in difficulty through an unexpected change in circumstances, for which the ability to do simple budgeting is no prevention or cure.
There is a wider issue over the imbalance in the contracts between banks and customers. When a customer makes a mistake the bank has it in their contract that they get penalised, they do this in a way that is not technically a penalty (which is disallowed by contract law) but walks and quacks like one. The customer has no such opportunity to insert unfair clauses into the contract or even negotiate on the existing ones, the contracts are considered set products and the customer is expected to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
What makes this issue worse is that they will admit to a court the purpose of charges is to fund their business but won't advertise it to their customers. This is dishonest because they could easily offer both types of account at no cost to themselves, they deny the customer choice by misrepresenting their services as competitive when really they're gambling on their customers misfortune.
No, they can charge the customer agreed to when they opened the account.
I presume the same goes for loan sharks? You may not agree with laws against unfair contracts but they do exist. I too agree that personal responsibility is a good thing but so is corporate responsibility. Here are some example scenarios to consider:
i) A customer misses a payment on a loan with their bank, the bank automatically takes the money out of their account anyway causing them to go overdrawn. This eventuality isn't in their contract and does not occur to them because had they a loan with a different bank such a thing would never have happened, why would any sensible business penalise customers for using all their services? Banks do.
ii) The bank makes a mistake which ends up with a customer going overdrawn. While the bank has it in the contract to add charges should the customer make a mistake, the customer is forced to go through a complaints procedure that can take up to eight weeks in which time the bank is adding more charges and interest on those charges. The customer is unlikely to get any compensation for any problems resulting from the mistake.
iii) A customer falls ill and goes overdrawn because they are in hospital and have no one to cancel any direct debits. The bank does not make any direct debit payments because there is no money in the account, they do however charge the customer for the rejected direct debit which pushes them overdrawn. By the time the customer is out of hospital they are in arrears with various companies whose direct debits have defaulted and on top of that have hundreds of pounds in overdraft charges putting their account further into the red. The customer now has the option to beg the bank to write off the charges out of good will.
My banking is free, because people who pay unauthorised-overdraft fees subsidise it.
This would be valid if people made the choice to gamble the fact that they can micromanage their finances, most don't because the banks don't advertise that as the function of the accounts. If they offered more choice and advertised the purposes of their different packages adequately then this would not be an issue.
Ah, you mean it only matters if they refuse to pay rather than neglect to pay. I would argue that still counts as going to prison for not paying because you can not pay the TV licence out of intention as well as neglect.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 + costs. You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence. No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.
Do this many people really not want truly guilty people caught and prosecuted?
Guilty of what and at the expense of what? Could you cite specific examples, as you seem so eager to chastise others for failing to provide?
I don't want people truly guilty of possessing marijuana to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of indulging in whimsical fantasies involving fictional characters to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of copyright infringement to be caught and prosecuted. Had this been some years ago I would not have wanted people truly guilty of being gay to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of sexting to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of being mistaken for a terrorist to be shot on the London Underground. I do not want people truly guilty of possessing a knife to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of breast feeding to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of disobeying school authorities to be caught and prosecuted.
Aside from that, I'd rather rot in prison than have some moron telling me that my privacy is less important than their fishing expedition for child pornography or bomb making recipes. Note from that article a detective is quoted as saying "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know... What is anybody gonna think?". I'd rather be water-boarded than cooperate with that sort of pond life. If a detective wants me to cooperate then they will need a better reason than 'we hope you're guilty of something, let us pry into your private life or we will presume the worse'.
If you haven't guessed, I'm not by definition a 'law-abiding' citizen. Were laws in perfect alignment with my principles then I would still only be law abiding by circumstance, not choice. I'd feel much safer around a person who doesn't try to kill me because they choose not to than someone who is just abiding by the law. So, here's me. Sticking it to the man. And proud of it. With long hair. But not a hippy.
While your sarcasm is cute, you seemed to have neglected to burden your efforts with a point that follows your reference to the previous post. Perhaps it would be clearer if you could point out what concept in the previous post is referred to by 'See, that' and the subsequent sarcastic display of disbelief.
Actually I was just trying to highlight the pointlessness of Gbarules' statement by making one that was even more pointless that contradicted theirs. The fact that you have managed to read so much into it furthers my point; Without an explanation of why Gbarules believes it is a pity you can only really guess as to what their point is.
Note from Gbarules' post that they say 'content they consume' when referring to content someone might pirate. That would be a strange assumption for someone who is pro piracy as one of the key reasons to pirate might be because you could not access the content to consume it in the first place otherwise.
I don't believe there is even an issue about whether to pirate, I am hopeful that people copying will help facilitate change by allowing participation in current culture while allowing more resources to go towards new ways of doing things. I'm a firm believer that if you can copy the cake then you can both have it and eat it.
As to whether it is the norm, I am not sure quantifying piracy is a useful exercise. Anti piracy rhetoric is probably right in one thing, most people who pirate are unlikely to have put much thought into the choice. Of course what they neglect to point out is that the same might be said about people who choose not to pirate.
I'm wondering how it compares to magnatune.com (which I subscribe to), I believe they split the revenue 50/50 with the artists. Of course their business model is rather different to iTunes but considering the fixed price system of iTunes I would expect labels to be able to afford to give artists a bigger cut.
when Siouxsie and the Banshees released "Oh Bondage, Up Yours"
Uh, "Oh Bondage, Up Yours!" was a song by X-Ray Spex, not Siouxsie and the Banshees. BTW, all of the labels Siouxsie and the Banshees have been on appear to have been bought by UMG.
Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance. And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).
Where is the incentive for publishers etc. to change if they're getting money either way? A person is entirely excused in getting something of zero cost illegally when they are denied access to it legally. If the publishers etc. want money then they can acknowledge the market forces at work and make something worth buying.
I was not aware you had a basic human right to make as many digital copies of photos or video or audio as you like and distribute them to whomever you wish. Nor was I aware that you had the right to possess material which exists in contravention of the law. Please, tell me where this basic human right is codified and on what basis it is established.
I was not aware he referred to any such right. I thought he was referring to basic human freedom, which is what copyright limits. I believe it is codified under 'the right to liberty' because any restrictions on that right without fair consideration are an infringement.
Lets face reality though, Pirate Bay exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You really can't deny that, it does not make any attempt what so ever to prevent it. It was created by an anti-copyright organization.
No, they exist to share files. The consequences of providing this service is many people share copyrighted material; I agree that the people running the pirate bay have demonstrated they have no problem with this. You are wrong in saying it exists to facilitate copyright infringement because if copyright was not an issue then the site would still exist to share non copyrighted material.
You can't hold me responsible for a murder on my property that I had no idea was going on, didn't see, didn't intentionally facilitate and would have attempted to stop had I known about it.. But when on any given day (in fact several thousand times EVERYDAY), I can look out my window and watch it happening, while I sit and drink my coffee, its a slightly different story. When the exclusive reason people come to my property is because I'll provide them with information on how to find victims, and then look the other way while they strangle those victims, I am most certainly responsible for the murders as much as the guy doing it. They can't even say 'I was just following orders', unless you think that was a valid excuse for Hitler as well, considering he was giving the orders, I don't think anyone would go that far would they?
I wouldn't expect the courts to allow someone watching these murders to take place and not do anything about it, I hope you don't either.
Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
The only thing copyright infringement has in common with murder is that both of them are considered unlawful. It may be an effective emotive device to draw a comparison between copyright infringement and murder but I think the argument could be summed up 'people should respect the law'.
There is a lot of precedent to contest this. We largely got where we are today by people ignoring laws they did not agree with, for example the Boston Tea Party is widely regarded as a justified case of direct action, Wikipedia has many more examples.
Bad law has the inevitable effect of reducing the respect for good law, in defending the respect for law as a whole you are defending bad law and exacerbating the problem. In showing a disagreement with bad law you can strengthen good law by highlighting the reasons behind it. Consider the chicken and egg scenario: what came first? Law or reason? It is obvious to most that reason came before law but If respect for the law is a goal then that implies that law is an ends rather than a means. When law becomes the ends then the pursuit of reason becomes diminished by the pursuit of law. If people start basing their choices on whether something is lawful then they lose the ability to reason which is far more important than the ability to follow law.
I worry for the rule of the law when people can so easily skirt around it in this way.
I worry when we are ruled by law rather than reason. A famous philosopher once said that philosophy allowed him to do by choice what others did by the rule of law, to say that law is more important than reason is to take the power of people to reason for themselves away from them.
When you make comments like yours, and people mod them insightful, it just makes the anti-copyright movement seem all the more illegitimate. Take legalized racism in America for example. Riots and violence didn't make it go away, it just got people killed and hurt those being wronged more than those d
Because oftentimes I buy a game on DVD for $20, play it, and then sell it used for $10-15, so my actual out-of-pocket cost for most games is less than $10 overall.
Or more to the point, who says a tangible property does not exist? You? People who think like you? Prove to me that the concept of property is intrinsically imbued with physical attributes, prove to me that the concept of intangible property is a recently made invention and not something that has existed for centuries in different cultures in one form of another, then we talk.
Maybe I can help with that. In terms of copyright, the word property is correctly used to describe ownership of that copyright. That use of the term is distinct from the description of physical property but is still perfectly correct, as words often have more than one meaning. Use of words like stealing (as was referenced in a previous post in this thread) to describe what is correctly termed infringement, misplaces the notion of property from the owners rights as codified in law to the copies they are entitled to control as a result of that law.
The distinction that makes the validity of copyright itself an issue is that of the limitations of physical property. The simple fact of our economic system is that it does not work if people cannot have ownership of things of scarcity, or if it can no one has demonstrated it (think of the 'tragedy of the commons' dilemma). While a work of art may be unique, many of its more valued properties are not limited by scarcity. You can take a photo of a work of art and you can make a billion copies of that photo, they are not the work of art but they may have many of the properties that the original piece was valued for. What would be scarce is the person who made that piece of art, there can only be one artist, and who has the original, the owner. One of these things is already protected by laws pertaining to physical property, whereas the other is protected by laws protecting against plagiarism. Both of those things are what could be called natural rights, because there can only be one author and one owner then there is a need for the law to protect those rights. Copyright was never even referred to as a natural right in the earliest legislation, let alone now when copies can be infinitely abundant. Copyright was put into law as a device to try and apply the economics of physical property to encourage the production of creative works.
With that in mind, the issue becomes not one of whether intellectual property is a tangible property but whether artificial restrictions should be further imposed upon creative works in order to allow the business models many now take for granted.
Slashdot Mirror
which is no less a belief structure than a religious one.
How does disbelief inherit structure? You can have a structure of opposing belief based on atheism which may become a religion but atheism itself isn't the religion in that case. You could even call it atheism, but it would be Atheism rather than atheism.
Lack of a belief is a 'disbelief' by definition. If I say, "I do not believe in hell" and a priest states that I will go to hell, then his statements are directly against my belief that there is no hell, and instructing me that I will go there is blasphemous because it is against my religious beliefs.
No, you can have a lack of belief without believing the opposite. Your disbelief is contrary to their belief but not necessarily contrary to what they believe in.
atheism is more than simply lack of belief in a deity. consider some definitions:
If you wish to play with dictionaries, lets use your obviously infallible friend Webster (I'm British, I feel I must point out my use of sarcasm is because Webster is famous for re-writing the English language), and follow the path you have laid to one of its possible conclusions:
Atheism: 2a - a disbelief in the existence of deity.
Disbelief: the act of disbelieving.
Disbelieve: to hold not worthy of belief.
Therefore, you've just cherry-picked the definition to suit your argument. It isn't even a case of you cherry picking your source, your damn source contradicts you. If you'd bothered to widen your field of reference then you'd have found many references to atheism being a mere lack of belief in both dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
It seems to me like the dog-eat-dog mentality. While I can respect such principles if genuine, I have to suspect that they only take that position when they are the bigger dog or when it's not their puppy being eaten.
As someone who helps people who get into financial trouble I would also point out that the majority of them are in difficulty through an unexpected change in circumstances, for which the ability to do simple budgeting is no prevention or cure.
There is a wider issue over the imbalance in the contracts between banks and customers. When a customer makes a mistake the bank has it in their contract that they get penalised, they do this in a way that is not technically a penalty (which is disallowed by contract law) but walks and quacks like one. The customer has no such opportunity to insert unfair clauses into the contract or even negotiate on the existing ones, the contracts are considered set products and the customer is expected to go elsewhere if they don't like it.
What makes this issue worse is that they will admit to a court the purpose of charges is to fund their business but won't advertise it to their customers. This is dishonest because they could easily offer both types of account at no cost to themselves, they deny the customer choice by misrepresenting their services as competitive when really they're gambling on their customers misfortune.
No, they can charge the customer agreed to when they opened the account.
I presume the same goes for loan sharks? You may not agree with laws against unfair contracts but they do exist. I too agree that personal responsibility is a good thing but so is corporate responsibility. Here are some example scenarios to consider:
i) A customer misses a payment on a loan with their bank, the bank automatically takes the money out of their account anyway causing them to go overdrawn. This eventuality isn't in their contract and does not occur to them because had they a loan with a different bank such a thing would never have happened, why would any sensible business penalise customers for using all their services? Banks do.
ii) The bank makes a mistake which ends up with a customer going overdrawn. While the bank has it in the contract to add charges should the customer make a mistake, the customer is forced to go through a complaints procedure that can take up to eight weeks in which time the bank is adding more charges and interest on those charges. The customer is unlikely to get any compensation for any problems resulting from the mistake.
iii) A customer falls ill and goes overdrawn because they are in hospital and have no one to cancel any direct debits. The bank does not make any direct debit payments because there is no money in the account, they do however charge the customer for the rejected direct debit which pushes them overdrawn. By the time the customer is out of hospital they are in arrears with various companies whose direct debits have defaulted and on top of that have hundreds of pounds in overdraft charges putting their account further into the red. The customer now has the option to beg the bank to write off the charges out of good will.
My banking is free, because people who pay unauthorised-overdraft fees subsidise it.
This would be valid if people made the choice to gamble the fact that they can micromanage their finances, most don't because the banks don't advertise that as the function of the accounts. If they offered more choice and advertised the purposes of their different packages adequately then this would not be an issue.
Ah, you mean it only matters if they refuse to pay rather than neglect to pay. I would argue that still counts as going to prison for not paying because you can not pay the TV licence out of intention as well as neglect.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1000 + costs. You may go to prison for not paying the fine, but that's the same for any offence. No one has been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence.
This distinction matters how?
Do this many people really not want truly guilty people caught and prosecuted?
Guilty of what and at the expense of what? Could you cite specific examples, as you seem so eager to chastise others for failing to provide?
I don't want people truly guilty of possessing marijuana to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of indulging in whimsical fantasies involving fictional characters to be caught and prosecuted. I don't want people truly guilty of copyright infringement to be caught and prosecuted. Had this been some years ago I would not have wanted people truly guilty of being gay to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of sexting to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of being mistaken for a terrorist to be shot on the London Underground. I do not want people truly guilty of possessing a knife to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of breast feeding to be caught and prosecuted. I do not want people truly guilty of disobeying school authorities to be caught and prosecuted.
Aside from that, I'd rather rot in prison than have some moron telling me that my privacy is less important than their fishing expedition for child pornography or bomb making recipes. Note from that article a detective is quoted as saying "Unless you tell us we're never gonna know... What is anybody gonna think?". I'd rather be water-boarded than cooperate with that sort of pond life. If a detective wants me to cooperate then they will need a better reason than 'we hope you're guilty of something, let us pry into your private life or we will presume the worse'.
If you haven't guessed, I'm not by definition a 'law-abiding' citizen. Were laws in perfect alignment with my principles then I would still only be law abiding by circumstance, not choice. I'd feel much safer around a person who doesn't try to kill me because they choose not to than someone who is just abiding by the law. So, here's me. Sticking it to the man. And proud of it. With long hair. But not a hippy.
While your sarcasm is cute, you seemed to have neglected to burden your efforts with a point that follows your reference to the previous post. Perhaps it would be clearer if you could point out what concept in the previous post is referred to by 'See, that' and the subsequent sarcastic display of disbelief.
Actually I was just trying to highlight the pointlessness of Gbarules' statement by making one that was even more pointless that contradicted theirs. The fact that you have managed to read so much into it furthers my point; Without an explanation of why Gbarules believes it is a pity you can only really guess as to what their point is.
Note from Gbarules' post that they say 'content they consume' when referring to content someone might pirate. That would be a strange assumption for someone who is pro piracy as one of the key reasons to pirate might be because you could not access the content to consume it in the first place otherwise.
I don't believe there is even an issue about whether to pirate, I am hopeful that people copying will help facilitate change by allowing participation in current culture while allowing more resources to go towards new ways of doing things. I'm a firm believer that if you can copy the cake then you can both have it and eat it.
As to whether it is the norm, I am not sure quantifying piracy is a useful exercise. Anti piracy rhetoric is probably right in one thing, most people who pirate are unlikely to have put much thought into the choice. Of course what they neglect to point out is that the same might be said about people who choose not to pirate.
I'm wondering how it compares to magnatune.com (which I subscribe to), I believe they split the revenue 50/50 with the artists. Of course their business model is rather different to iTunes but considering the fixed price system of iTunes I would expect labels to be able to afford to give artists a bigger cut.
Because of the lack of a mutual agreement to do otherwise.
It's a pity that "just pirate it" isn't a typical reposnce for most issues people have with content they consume, isn't it?
Isn't it a pity that it isn't a pity that you'd like it to be a pity for what isn't a typical response?
Out of curiosity, how much of the .99$ did you get from iTunes with a minor label?
when Siouxsie and the Banshees released "Oh Bondage, Up Yours"
Uh, "Oh Bondage, Up Yours!" was a song by X-Ray Spex, not Siouxsie and the Banshees. BTW, all of the labels Siouxsie and the Banshees have been on appear to have been bought by UMG.
Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance. And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).
Where is the incentive for publishers etc. to change if they're getting money either way? A person is entirely excused in getting something of zero cost illegally when they are denied access to it legally. If the publishers etc. want money then they can acknowledge the market forces at work and make something worth buying.
Certainly, Aristotle from Lives of Eminent Philosophers. As you can see the correct ending is fear of law not rule of law.
Nobody has a legal right to do anything illegally. That's by definition of "illegal".
Fixed that for you.
I was not aware you had a basic human right to make as many digital copies of photos or video or audio as you like and distribute them to whomever you wish. Nor was I aware that you had the right to possess material which exists in contravention of the law. Please, tell me where this basic human right is codified and on what basis it is established.
I was not aware he referred to any such right. I thought he was referring to basic human freedom, which is what copyright limits. I believe it is codified under 'the right to liberty' because any restrictions on that right without fair consideration are an infringement.
Lets face reality though, Pirate Bay exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You really can't deny that, it does not make any attempt what so ever to prevent it. It was created by an anti-copyright organization.
No, they exist to share files. The consequences of providing this service is many people share copyrighted material; I agree that the people running the pirate bay have demonstrated they have no problem with this. You are wrong in saying it exists to facilitate copyright infringement because if copyright was not an issue then the site would still exist to share non copyrighted material.
You can't hold me responsible for a murder on my property that I had no idea was going on, didn't see, didn't intentionally facilitate and would have attempted to stop had I known about it.. But when on any given day (in fact several thousand times EVERYDAY), I can look out my window and watch it happening, while I sit and drink my coffee, its a slightly different story. When the exclusive reason people come to my property is because I'll provide them with information on how to find victims, and then look the other way while they strangle those victims, I am most certainly responsible for the murders as much as the guy doing it. They can't even say 'I was just following orders', unless you think that was a valid excuse for Hitler as well, considering he was giving the orders, I don't think anyone would go that far would they?
I wouldn't expect the courts to allow someone watching these murders to take place and not do anything about it, I hope you don't either.
Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?
Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.
The only thing copyright infringement has in common with murder is that both of them are considered unlawful. It may be an effective emotive device to draw a comparison between copyright infringement and murder but I think the argument could be summed up 'people should respect the law'.
There is a lot of precedent to contest this. We largely got where we are today by people ignoring laws they did not agree with, for example the Boston Tea Party is widely regarded as a justified case of direct action, Wikipedia has many more examples.
Bad law has the inevitable effect of reducing the respect for good law, in defending the respect for law as a whole you are defending bad law and exacerbating the problem. In showing a disagreement with bad law you can strengthen good law by highlighting the reasons behind it. Consider the chicken and egg scenario: what came first? Law or reason? It is obvious to most that reason came before law but If respect for the law is a goal then that implies that law is an ends rather than a means. When law becomes the ends then the pursuit of reason becomes diminished by the pursuit of law. If people start basing their choices on whether something is lawful then they lose the ability to reason which is far more important than the ability to follow law.
I worry for the rule of the law when people can so easily skirt around it in this way.
I worry when we are ruled by law rather than reason. A famous philosopher once said that philosophy allowed him to do by choice what others did by the rule of law, to say that law is more important than reason is to take the power of people to reason for themselves away from them.
When you make comments like yours, and people mod them insightful, it just makes the anti-copyright movement seem all the more illegitimate. Take legalized racism in America for example. Riots and violence didn't make it go away, it just got people killed and hurt those being wronged more than those d
Lol. You should become a comedian. I especially like the line:
Funnily enough all the stuff that's being pirated, the creators do have a legal right to charge for it, so what on earth are you on about?
Right after quoting "except that which is written in law". I don't think I have a big enough WOOSH! for you.
Because oftentimes I buy a game on DVD for $20, play it, and then sell it used for $10-15, so my actual out-of-pocket cost for most games is less than $10 overall.
Allow me to be the first to say.... THIEF!!!!!!!
Or more to the point, who says a tangible property does not exist? You? People who think like you? Prove to me that the concept of property is intrinsically imbued with physical attributes, prove to me that the concept of intangible property is a recently made invention and not something that has existed for centuries in different cultures in one form of another, then we talk.
Maybe I can help with that. In terms of copyright, the word property is correctly used to describe ownership of that copyright. That use of the term is distinct from the description of physical property but is still perfectly correct, as words often have more than one meaning. Use of words like stealing (as was referenced in a previous post in this thread) to describe what is correctly termed infringement, misplaces the notion of property from the owners rights as codified in law to the copies they are entitled to control as a result of that law.
The distinction that makes the validity of copyright itself an issue is that of the limitations of physical property. The simple fact of our economic system is that it does not work if people cannot have ownership of things of scarcity, or if it can no one has demonstrated it (think of the 'tragedy of the commons' dilemma). While a work of art may be unique, many of its more valued properties are not limited by scarcity. You can take a photo of a work of art and you can make a billion copies of that photo, they are not the work of art but they may have many of the properties that the original piece was valued for. What would be scarce is the person who made that piece of art, there can only be one artist, and who has the original, the owner. One of these things is already protected by laws pertaining to physical property, whereas the other is protected by laws protecting against plagiarism. Both of those things are what could be called natural rights, because there can only be one author and one owner then there is a need for the law to protect those rights. Copyright was never even referred to as a natural right in the earliest legislation, let alone now when copies can be infinitely abundant. Copyright was put into law as a device to try and apply the economics of physical property to encourage the production of creative works.
With that in mind, the issue becomes not one of whether intellectual property is a tangible property but whether artificial restrictions should be further imposed upon creative works in order to allow the business models many now take for granted.
Yes, because I distinctly said I subscribe the FSF's principles. Perhaps you can play spot the statement where that happened.