4 ms·

Okay, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I’m legitimately trying to understand. Do you think after that book was published it should have no copyright prote

Okay, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I’m legitimately trying to understand. Do you think after that book was published it should have no copyright protection? That it should be totally legal for me to print and sell my own copies?

breck 5y ago
Yes. Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. JK is a talented and hard working writer, and though I'm not a fan personally of those books I respect that they likely are great pieces of work, but I believe we are getting the scraps of what we could get in the Intellectually Oppressed world compared to an Intellectually free world. I'd rather have a world without cancer, a world with 100x more people able to provide medical care, a world with less pollution, than a world of artificial scarcity where a few who go along with a system of oppression get to be billionaires.
- davidjytang 5y ago
  > Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. So not imaginary wizards then. What should be regulated? Is it nothing? Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?
  - breck 5y ago
    > Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"? Yes. Your lungs is a tree that needs healthy air. Your brain is a tree that needs healthy ideas. When people are not free to clean the ideawaves, they fill with pollution, and that is where we find ourselves.
    - davidjytang 5y ago
      By analogy, are you saying government should not regulate and protect air quality?
zarzavat 5y ago
Sure why not? Do you think JK Rowling needs more money? Maybe the state could grant protection for 10 years after publishing to give the author a chance to recoup their investment. I don't know why the protection extends to the author's grandchildren.
- icebraining 5y ago
  The argument is whether copyright should exist at all, not if it should be shortened. They are very, very different discussions.

breck 5y ago

Yes. Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. JK is a talented and hard working writer, and though I'm not a fan personally of those books I respect that they likely are great pieces of work, but I believe we are getting the scraps of what we could get in the Intellectually Oppressed world compared to an Intellectually free world. I'd rather have a world without cancer, a world with 100x more people able to provide medical care, a world with less pollution, than a world of artificial scarcity where a few who go along with a system of oppression get to be billionaires.

davidjytang 5y ago
> Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards. So not imaginary wizards then. What should be regulated? Is it nothing? Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?
- breck 5y ago
  > Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"? Yes. Your lungs is a tree that needs healthy air. Your brain is a tree that needs healthy ideas. When people are not free to clean the ideawaves, they fill with pollution, and that is where we find ourselves.
  - davidjytang 5y ago
    By analogy, are you saying government should not regulate and protect air quality?

zarzavat 5y ago

Sure why not? Do you think JK Rowling needs more money? Maybe the state could grant protection for 10 years after publishing to give the author a chance to recoup their investment. I don't know why the protection extends to the author's grandchildren.

icebraining 5y ago
The argument is whether copyright should exist at all, not if it should be shortened. They are very, very different discussions.