3 ms·

That's totally nonsensical. Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. For "things" where there's an actual good being produced, t

by advael 5y ago

That's totally nonsensical. Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. For "things" where there's an actual good being produced, this makes perfect sense under property rights. We do not need a concept of intellectual property for this to be how it works, and adding that nonsensical concept wherein "ideas" can abstractly themselves be property only serves to further empower capital to form monopolies backed by the government in this context. The most coherent arguments I've heard for intellectual property view the value of this unnatural "ideas as property" construct as a way for small creators to have some means of subverting this dynamic, but it fails to do that. The idea that creative work is produced "speculatively" rather than "at production" is using your ridiculous prior stated assumption that the entity that pays for the production becomes the "creator" of the work. I've already explained why that's insane. This speculative model of content production is a business model that's emerged in the context of extant laws, not an inevitable necessity of production. It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way, and I don't think it's valuable to protect this business model with criminal law

eropple 5y ago
> It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way Or the author of a book.
- advael 5y ago
  Perhaps, if said author is able to produce the whole book such that it can be copyrighted, find a way to publish it independently, and defend their copyright if a publisher likes the idea and gets something similar enough to not quite be considered the same thing ghostwritten. This may occasionally be feasible, although it does require considerable capital or the help of someone else who has it. At the end of the day, right now getting a good deal out of IP still requires finding someone to work with you that you can trust, or having a lot of money to start out with
jay_kyburz 5y ago
>Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. Its not the capital that gives companies ownership of its creation, its the "will made manifest" by wielding said capital. The company wants the creation to exist, then the manipulates the world around it so that the thing comes into existence. You talk of companies as if they are not also people. Companies are collections of people.

by advael 5y ago

eropple 5y ago

> It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way Or the author of a book.

advael 5y ago
Perhaps, if said author is able to produce the whole book such that it can be copyrighted, find a way to publish it independently, and defend their copyright if a publisher likes the idea and gets something similar enough to not quite be considered the same thing ghostwritten. This may occasionally be feasible, although it does require considerable capital or the help of someone else who has it. At the end of the day, right now getting a good deal out of IP still requires finding someone to work with you that you can trust, or having a lot of money to start out with

jay_kyburz 5y ago

>Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. Its not the capital that gives companies ownership of its creation, its the "will made manifest" by wielding said capital. The company wants the creation to exist, then the manipulates the world around it so that the thing comes into existence. You talk of companies as if they are not also people. Companies are collections of people.