3 ms·

>Sure. Real property like land and physical possessions. Not this imaginary property that only exists to let people turn abundance into scarcity There is no di

>Sure. Real property like land and physical possessions. Not this imaginary property that only exists to let people turn abundance into scarcity There is no difference between the two. All property is 'imaginary'. Turning abundance into scarcity is literally the only reason to have property rights all the time, including in the physical world. Land isn't actually scarce in most places. The reason we introduce scarcity and ownership for land as well as digital goods is exactly the same. because it gives the owner an incentive to tend to it. It lets you capture the value of the improvements you add to it. The enclosure of the commons didn't happen because the commons were scarce, it happened to create conditions for their development rather than their abuse. Software developers who don't own their code earn 800 dollars on patreon will Microsoft makes millions of their labor. This is literally the economics of free software. It's the largest upwards distribution of wealth ever invented. Imaginary property, that is to say intellectual property, is the only thing that puts you on even ground with Microsoft. You want a world without it where hardware is the only thing that matters? Good luck competing.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> There is no difference between the two. All property is 'imaginary'. Turning abundance into scarcity is literally the only reason to have property rights all the time, including in the physical world. Land isn't actually scarce in most places. No way. Physical things are scarce. This is basic physics. You cannot duplicate energy or matter. Two physical bodies cannot occupy the same space. Physical property is not even in the same conceptual space as intellectual property. Land isn't scarce in most places? Really. Exactly none of the properties I just mentioned apply to any form of intellectual property. You can duplicate bits infinitely at negligible costs. > Software developers who don't own their code earn 800 dollars on patreon will Microsoft makes millions of their labor. Microsoft makes a zillion dollars off of free software labor because those developers were tricked into giving up their rights while simultaneously allowing Microsoft to retain theirs. It makes no sense to give away code unless everyone does. I have three answers to this: Abolish copyright straight up. Now everyone's on equal footing with Microsoft. No longer a crime to use their proprietary code when it inevitably leaks and even make money off of it. License everything under AGPLv3. They can't exploit your free labor if they refuse to touch your free software code. This is the approach I ended up choosing because I don't have the power to enact the previous solution. I don't think I'll ever license anything under a "permissive" license ever again. Simply don't publish the code. Nothing wrong with keeping it private, for one's own use only. I do this too.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> There is no difference between the two. All property is 'imaginary'. Turning abundance into scarcity is literally the only reason to have property rights all the time, including in the physical world. Land isn't actually scarce in most places. No way. Physical things are scarce. This is basic physics. You cannot duplicate energy or matter. Two physical bodies cannot occupy the same space. Physical property is not even in the same conceptual space as intellectual property. Land isn't scarce in most places? Really. Exactly none of the properties I just mentioned apply to any form of intellectual property. You can duplicate bits infinitely at negligible costs. > Software developers who don't own their code earn 800 dollars on patreon will Microsoft makes millions of their labor. Microsoft makes a zillion dollars off of free software labor because those developers were tricked into giving up their rights while simultaneously allowing Microsoft to retain theirs. It makes no sense to give away code unless everyone does. I have three answers to this: Abolish copyright straight up. Now everyone's on equal footing with Microsoft. No longer a crime to use their proprietary code when it inevitably leaks and even make money off of it. License everything under AGPLv3. They can't exploit your free labor if they refuse to touch your free software code. This is the approach I ended up choosing because I don't have the power to enact the previous solution. I don't think I'll ever license anything under a "permissive" license ever again. Simply don't publish the code. Nothing wrong with keeping it private, for one's own use only. I do this too.