3 ms·
What.CD did piracy and this is why it achieved these things. Piracy is a violation of copyright. Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. Monopolies preven
by rvern 10y ago
What.CD did piracy and this is why it achieved these things. Piracy is a violation of copyright. Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state. Monopolies prevent competition and are counter to capitalism. The shutting down of What.CD is the doing of the government, not the doing of capitalism.[1]
Free market capitalism means economic liberalism. It doesn’t mean “big evil companies making big money.” In a real free market, the government wouldn’t grant these monopolies. What.CD would be more convenient than Netflix and iTunes because it costs nothing and doesn’t have DRM, so Netflix and iTunes would disappear and What.CD would remain. This is literally what would actually happen in an actual free market.
Economists aren’t stupid. They don’t literally believe there is a magical invisible hand guiding the market any more than biologists believe there is a magical deity guiding the evolution of species. Magic isn’t required for a free market to be efficient: it's just a phenomenon that happens and that we have a logical, non-religious, non-faith-based explanation for.
[1]: I’ll quote Wikipedia on this:
– “Copyright is a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)
– “Exclusive rights are a form of monopoly.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right)
- pikzen 10y agoNo, what would happen in a free market is that the "big evil companies" would hire muscle to shut what.cd by other means. Like, let's say, seizing their servers. And justifying it by saying that they are the only ones allowed to redistribute this music. That sounds awfully close to "using police to seize servers and justifying it with copyright", doesn't it? But yes, clearly, the government is to blame. It hasn't been lobbied by those companies to extend copyright duration, or increase punishment for copyright violation. Nope. A free market would totally make that better because they would never do such evil.
- ue_ 10y agoWhat rubbish. Capitalism requires one (or a government) to enforce property rights. The more one can declare as valid property (e.g IP) the better it is for the holder of that property. These motivations for more property do not simply evaporate when the government stops granting monopolies over works. I'm as against copyright as anyone, but to say the push for it does not arise out of the conditions created by capitalism is false. Besides, in "free market" capitalism, there is still exploitation of the workers and disregard for the environment so long as that disregard does not hamper profits. The fact that there would be no copyright is hardly motivating in these circumstances.
- vedranm 10y agoSome libertarians do not accept the so-called "intellectual property" as a valid form of property, e.g. Kinsella [1, 2]. It's a debatable topic. [1] https://fee.org/resources/intellectual-property-versus-real-property/ https://fee.org/resources/intellectual-property-versus-real-... [2] https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-the-free-market/ https://fee.org/articles/how-intellectual-property-hampers-t...
- ue_ 10y agoPrecisely, but my point is that it would be good for any capitalist to consider as many objects as property as possible, for the purpose of claiming rights on that property. The fact that it's not actually property (which I agree with) is irrelevant. If the government were to agree on this point, great. But capitalists don't just throw up their arms and go home. Capitalism has no regard for philosophies such as libertarianism. It crushes everything or finds a way.
- Trundle 10y agoUh, wtf? Capitalism requires capital, which is exactly what you are railing against. A monopoly over using a thing.