3 ms·

It's not only about copying and sharing, but also who has the right to sell and distribute. If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, wh

by adsr 15y ago

It's not only about copying and sharing, but also who has the right to sell and distribute. If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work.

gnaritas 15y ago
> If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. Ug.. it's pointless to state how things currently work in a meta discussion about whether the current method makes sense. I'm asking you to justify copyright, not explain it. I repeat, why do you think you should get to control what other people do with information? > I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work. And I say you shouldn't, so justify your belief. You should be able to control yourself, that's it; not the products of your labor when copied. Information is not property, you don't have less of it if I copy it and you should have no say over me copying it regardless of who produced it.
- adsr 15y ago
  As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something.
  - gnaritas 15y ago
    > If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without copyright because you'd know up front you can't make money selling it? > The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. No it can't. Property is physical, if I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your novel, you don't even know it happened. Physical property and intellectual property aren't at all the same. > It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something. No, it really isn't.
    - adsr 15y ago
      You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        Still not an argument for why intellectual property should be allowed. Physical property is different, you can try and say it isn't all you want, but you're wrong, it is. I can't copy your car, I can copy your novel in milliseconds; these things are radically different. One deserves to be called property, one doesn't.
        adsr 15y ago
        Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. I wouldn't have any issues with this, but you would violate similar laws and the car manufacturer might sue you if you went on producing and selling that car. Physical property is not different, your argument is: "it is" (in italic). But just to show you that a similar argument can be made that includes physical property I leave this Rousseau quote here. "The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"
        gnaritas 15y ago
        > Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. OK, if you're just going to be ignorant, goodbye.

by adsr 15y ago

gnaritas 15y ago

> If you create software, you are copyright owner of that software, which means I can not take it, sell it and take credit for it. Ug.. it's pointless to state how things currently work in a meta discussion about whether the current method makes sense. I'm asking you to justify copyright, not explain it. I repeat, why do you think you should get to control what other people do with information? > I don't think I get to control what other people do with information, but you should have the right to control what others do with your work. And I say you shouldn't, so justify your belief. You should be able to control yourself, that's it; not the products of your labor when copied. Information is not property, you don't have less of it if I copy it and you should have no say over me copying it regardless of who produced it.

adsr 15y ago
As I said copying is only one part of copyright. If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. How can you claim to own something at all? It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something.
- gnaritas 15y ago
  > If you spend a year in production and spending a large amount of money in the process. You should be the owner of the product, or anyone could just make a copy and sell it at a heavy discount with no associated costs of production. You're still assuming a world where copyright exists. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? Do you not see that perhaps you wouldn't even attempt to do this in a world without copyright because you'd know up front you can't make money selling it? > The interesting thing is that the same argument can in fact be made for property. No it can't. Property is physical, if I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your novel, you don't even know it happened. Physical property and intellectual property aren't at all the same. > It's related to labor, having spent x amount of time working to buy something. No, it really isn't.
  - adsr 15y ago
    You can copy my car if you want, if you steal my novel I don't have it anymore. But seriously, why do you think that physical things costs money at all? Is this an inherent property of something being physical, or is the cost related to salaries payed for processing and production? If everyone worked for free, nothing would cost money. Are you unable to think outside of those bounds? I'm not arguing for this mind you, but the decision to protect property or the notion of property as such, is arbitrary and a human convention at the core.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      Still not an argument for why intellectual property should be allowed. Physical property is different, you can try and say it isn't all you want, but you're wrong, it is. I can't copy your car, I can copy your novel in milliseconds; these things are radically different. One deserves to be called property, one doesn't.
      - adsr 15y ago
        Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. I wouldn't have any issues with this, but you would violate similar laws and the car manufacturer might sue you if you went on producing and selling that car. Physical property is not different, your argument is: "it is" (in italic). But just to show you that a similar argument can be made that includes physical property I leave this Rousseau quote here. "The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"
        gnaritas 15y ago
        > Sure you can, first you measure the parts then you manufacture identical parts and assemble a car that is a copy of mine. OK, if you're just going to be ignorant, goodbye.