4 ms·

It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, criminalizi

It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, criminalizing merely observing something and independently reproducing it with your own private materials for your own non-commercial use. IMO it shakes to the core free market, capitalist, and founding principles of our nation.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, Ah, you’ve mistaken capitalism (which had been developing for centuries earlier) with 18th century liberal economic theory, which is not its foundation but instead a rough ex-post-facto rationalization for large parts of the way it had developed. What capitalism is, though, is the systematic prioritization of the interests of the mercantile (which became, as legal property rights coalesced around their interest, capitalist) class as the organizing principle of society.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  I think GP was using this definition: >an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[0] >which had been developing for centuries earlier The use of capital has existed for thousands of years already. One could make the case that there is no such thing as capitalism but rather the desire for the realization of interests. The ruling class "before capitalism" was also capitalist: the lords' power was derived from their capital- the land. The only real difference between the mercantile class and the landed gentry was the respect they commanded when it comes down to it. [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    The ruling class before capitalism was not capitalist — the nature of property rights in land was very different under feudalism than it is under capitalism.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      See dragonwriter's point above mine. Specific property rights are not necessary for capital to exist. Can you explain then why the nature of property rights was so different that ownership of it could not be consideres capital? Keep in mind that nobles could in fact sell their land at many points and places during medievil history. Aditionaly, I made the case that one could say there is no capitalism. Could you explain, then, what capitalism is and why it would somehow only exist from the 18th century or later?
- jrm4 4y ago
  Even further, all too many conflate much of the above with mere "commerce," a word I've been trying to inject into this. LITERALLY NO ONE DOES, or SHOULD, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCE. People are always going to buy and sell things. All the other stuff is details on exactly what the rules about doing this should be.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    AFAIK copyright applies even to certain materials that have not, and never will enter commerce. Of course there are certain non-commercial exceptions to US copyright law. (Note: this is not legal advice). IMO copyright law exceeds even the bounds of commerce, and thus cannot be simply called a "rule" of commerce.
chrisco255 4y ago
It doesn't blow my mind, we are quite a regulated society as much as my libertarian heart wishes we weren't. I generally agree that copyright needs to die, but for it to die, there has to be some private market system for determining provenance for ideas & intellectual capital and rewarding those ideas financially.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jrm4 4y ago
Weirdly, I'm OP, and I disagree. Fundamentally, without them, you get more situations like what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales. I don't follow this argument. Principles can't be replicated perfectly in reality, therefore they don't exist? By that logic, there is no actual "copyright" as some people will be copying material and getting away with it. >the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. This is proven wrong through any single example to the contrary. One example is ticketed book readings by the original author, or a ticketed concert by the original band. Many ways to capture income for generating content without copyright enforcement mechanisms. >what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. Is this an argument for or against copyright? Does Google get most of its operating revenue within nations without copyright law? Or is the argument they are violating copyright law and that's why the creator isn't getting anything? And there are counter examples, where a creator sells/relinquishes copyright (often because it's the only way for them to end up with anything) and ends up losing total access to income streams they could have had if copyright didn't exist, and the machinery owner ends up owning everything and locking the creator out through copyright law. The confusion also lies in the fact creator and copyright holder is not the same thing.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    I mean, you can't really think about this in a useful way if you don't first grasp "exaggeration for rhetorical effect." It's so odd that I'd have to preface things I say with that. "The people who own the machinery end up with overwhelming power and the creators get very little." Sigh. Again, for better or worse --without IP, the primary beneficiaries of "creativity" become the distributors. Opposing this is the whole point of copyright, and thus why it should defended in theory and heavily reformed in practice.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, Ah, you’ve mistaken capitalism (which had been developing for centuries earlier) with 18th century liberal economic theory, which is not its foundation but instead a rough ex-post-facto rationalization for large parts of the way it had developed. What capitalism is, though, is the systematic prioritization of the interests of the mercantile (which became, as legal property rights coalesced around their interest, capitalist) class as the organizing principle of society.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
I think GP was using this definition: >an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[0] >which had been developing for centuries earlier The use of capital has existed for thousands of years already. One could make the case that there is no such thing as capitalism but rather the desire for the realization of interests. The ruling class "before capitalism" was also capitalist: the lords' power was derived from their capital- the land. The only real difference between the mercantile class and the landed gentry was the respect they commanded when it comes down to it. [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  The ruling class before capitalism was not capitalist — the nature of property rights in land was very different under feudalism than it is under capitalism.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    See dragonwriter's point above mine. Specific property rights are not necessary for capital to exist. Can you explain then why the nature of property rights was so different that ownership of it could not be consideres capital? Keep in mind that nobles could in fact sell their land at many points and places during medievil history. Aditionaly, I made the case that one could say there is no capitalism. Could you explain, then, what capitalism is and why it would somehow only exist from the 18th century or later?
jrm4 4y ago
Even further, all too many conflate much of the above with mere "commerce," a word I've been trying to inject into this. LITERALLY NO ONE DOES, or SHOULD, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCE. People are always going to buy and sell things. All the other stuff is details on exactly what the rules about doing this should be.
- notch656a 4y ago
  AFAIK copyright applies even to certain materials that have not, and never will enter commerce. Of course there are certain non-commercial exceptions to US copyright law. (Note: this is not legal advice). IMO copyright law exceeds even the bounds of commerce, and thus cannot be simply called a "rule" of commerce.

chrisco255 4y ago

It doesn't blow my mind, we are quite a regulated society as much as my libertarian heart wishes we weren't. I generally agree that copyright needs to die, but for it to die, there has to be some private market system for determining provenance for ideas & intellectual capital and rewarding those ideas financially.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jrm4 4y ago

Weirdly, I'm OP, and I disagree. Fundamentally, without them, you get more situations like what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales.

notch656a 4y ago
>There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales. I don't follow this argument. Principles can't be replicated perfectly in reality, therefore they don't exist? By that logic, there is no actual "copyright" as some people will be copying material and getting away with it. >the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. This is proven wrong through any single example to the contrary. One example is ticketed book readings by the original author, or a ticketed concert by the original band. Many ways to capture income for generating content without copyright enforcement mechanisms. >what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing. Is this an argument for or against copyright? Does Google get most of its operating revenue within nations without copyright law? Or is the argument they are violating copyright law and that's why the creator isn't getting anything? And there are counter examples, where a creator sells/relinquishes copyright (often because it's the only way for them to end up with anything) and ends up losing total access to income streams they could have had if copyright didn't exist, and the machinery owner ends up owning everything and locking the creator out through copyright law. The confusion also lies in the fact creator and copyright holder is not the same thing.
- jrm4 4y ago
  I mean, you can't really think about this in a useful way if you don't first grasp "exaggeration for rhetorical effect." It's so odd that I'd have to preface things I say with that. "The people who own the machinery end up with overwhelming power and the creators get very little." Sigh. Again, for better or worse --without IP, the primary beneficiaries of "creativity" become the distributors. Opposing this is the whole point of copyright, and thus why it should defended in theory and heavily reformed in practice.