451–460 of 835 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how that works in a world truly without copyright. You can't spend hundreds of millions making GTA6 if the first person you sell it to can give away copies.
Oh, were you not alive when Steam started being a thing and piracy sharply reduced? Turns out people like to buy things from people who make things they like.
Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.
Money is also an unnatural construct, most of civilization has succeeded and advanced due to abstract constructs, and this is one of mankind’s strengths. Learn more about this in the book Sapiens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a terrible ruling. The first sale doctrine says the copy of the book you bought is yours. Lending the book is clearly not copying it. So, I guess you just don’t own anything you buy anymore? Like what if I want to lend a tool to someone, and the tool manufacturer wants to rent their tools out? Is that also illegal? What if the tool contains software? What if reasonable use of the tool requires accessing a prin…
Now that I think about it, not being able to own anything is a good reason to start stealing. Think about it, why is stealing bad? Usually, this is an application of the Golden Rule. If you don't want people to steal the stuff you own, you shouldn't steal their stuff either. However, if you are no longer allowed to own anything (just like under communism), then the argument falls apart. Realistically, information wan…
Most importantly here, information falls under "means of production", so under communism it should be free.
Freedom of information under capitalism is (as everything) a discussion about money.
I admire your optimism, regarding the copyrights future. Fingers crossed.
Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat th…
I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same s…
ok but they way that we treat them the same are both constructs, we don't treat them the same in that if A has the idea you can't have it (in the same way that if A takes the bite of bread you cannot have that bite of bread), we treat them the same that if A has the idea they have a right to profit from it by selling you the idea in the form of a book etc. just as if A has the bread they have a right to profit from it by selling you a bite. And you don't have the right to take the bread from A just because you can.
As noted while it is physically impossible for an object to exist in two places at the same time it is the social construct of ownership that we transfer from physical objects to non-physical objects.
Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.
Let's just hope IA can afford to pay any judgment entered against it. If the court finds IA had no reasonable grounds to believe this was fair use, then IA has to rebut a presumption of wilful infringement. If they fail, the statutory damages could be substantial. Assume Kahle has calculated the max cost of alleged infringement of 33,000 titles and is not putting the entire archive at risk over a book scanning project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?
Just reading through, the distinction seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn’t reinforce several of my ideological perspectives, even contradicts some, but the distinction is plain as day. Physical things are subject to the laws of physics (can’t be in two places at once), idea “things” are much more ephemeral and thus much less restricted by those same rules (an idea can propagate basically infinitely and be “had” by…