4 ms·

That's the only thing anyone can own in reality. The other concepts of property can only exist with the mechanisms of the State. Capitalism in this function is

That's the only thing anyone can own in reality. The other concepts of property can only exist with the mechanisms of the State. Capitalism in this function is an organ of the State and can only operate within a State since without a monopoly on force (be it a tribal council, a brutal tyrant, a publicly traded company, or a democracy) there's no means to deprive others of their labor or the product of their labor. And that is exactly what copyright does as a side effect. So, within a State we have to ask the question regarding how to best protect both labor and the products of someone's labor. It's not as easy as writing a computer program to be sure. I'm just pointing out that effectively all copyright doesn't effectively pay a proper wage as like all titled property it benefits those who can leverage the legal system to their favor. And historically speaking, copyright law has inevitably favored those who can pay the lawyers the most which is not the vast majority of creators (as labor).

williamcotton 11y ago
90% of copyright is handling registrations and settling transfers, updating the account books at various places... just a shit ton legal and accounting grunt work. We've got skyscrapers filled with said grunts all over the Western world. Enforcement has always been separate, even before copyright and from the very beginnings of the Stationers monopoly. Despite the existence of the High Commission, the reality of censorial control of the press at this time did not primarily lie with the stationers. Certainly, they had a role to play in the politics and practice of sixteenth century censorship,[24] but in fact it was not the stationers but rather "[t]wo long-standing institutions, parliament and the royal prerogative, [that] proved to be Elizabethan England's most useful means for effecting censorship" [Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England, 19] http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord?id=commentary_uk_1557 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord... It really could just be as easy as writing a computer program. Spotify is basically a voluntary collection agency that honors IP contracts. If we can make it so the legal and accounting services are computerized, with software both writing and enforcing contracts, we could make copyright registration and transfer settlement incredibly cheap. That's the main reason why copyright law has favored those who can pay the lawyers and accountants the most, they have always been necessary in order to make the entire system function.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Bingo. That's why I oppose copyright as it is both from a moral standpoint and the current legal reality of it. If real reforms could be passed that would focus on the creator of the original work and less on the owner of the copyright license then I could see this being as simple as paying a bar tab. It just seems people focus too much on the creators of content without realizing they're not the actual beneficiary of the current legal regime.
anigbrowl 11y ago
like all titled property it benefits those who can leverage the legal system to their favor The potential inequity of litigation outcomes doesn't mean that I would be better off without this property right.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  And yet history has proven that property rights of this kind don't actually give more to the creator. When Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin he fought for years in court against the makers of copycat versions of the cotton gin. Oddly, when he went into rifling of gun barrels he chose not to patent a single part of the process. He used trade secrets and focused on improving his products. It's not a 1-to-1 comparison to copyright of music and art but I think the principle still applies. Focus on making a product someone wants. If you can't price it property the first time then try another price or business model.

williamcotton 11y ago

90% of copyright is handling registrations and settling transfers, updating the account books at various places... just a shit ton legal and accounting grunt work. We've got skyscrapers filled with said grunts all over the Western world. Enforcement has always been separate, even before copyright and from the very beginnings of the Stationers monopoly. Despite the existence of the High Commission, the reality of censorial control of the press at this time did not primarily lie with the stationers. Certainly, they had a role to play in the politics and practice of sixteenth century censorship,[24] but in fact it was not the stationers but rather "[t]wo long-standing institutions, parliament and the royal prerogative, [that] proved to be Elizabethan England's most useful means for effecting censorship" [Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England, 19] http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord?id=commentary_uk_1557 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord... It really could just be as easy as writing a computer program. Spotify is basically a voluntary collection agency that honors IP contracts. If we can make it so the legal and accounting services are computerized, with software both writing and enforcing contracts, we could make copyright registration and transfer settlement incredibly cheap. That's the main reason why copyright law has favored those who can pay the lawyers and accountants the most, they have always been necessary in order to make the entire system function.

norea-armozel 11y ago
Bingo. That's why I oppose copyright as it is both from a moral standpoint and the current legal reality of it. If real reforms could be passed that would focus on the creator of the original work and less on the owner of the copyright license then I could see this being as simple as paying a bar tab. It just seems people focus too much on the creators of content without realizing they're not the actual beneficiary of the current legal regime.

anigbrowl 11y ago

like all titled property it benefits those who can leverage the legal system to their favor The potential inequity of litigation outcomes doesn't mean that I would be better off without this property right.

norea-armozel 11y ago
And yet history has proven that property rights of this kind don't actually give more to the creator. When Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin he fought for years in court against the makers of copycat versions of the cotton gin. Oddly, when he went into rifling of gun barrels he chose not to patent a single part of the process. He used trade secrets and focused on improving his products. It's not a 1-to-1 comparison to copyright of music and art but I think the principle still applies. Focus on making a product someone wants. If you can't price it property the first time then try another price or business model.