> Copyright is anti-capitalist ...uh, what? Like, if you're referring to, say, some hypothetically limited version of copyright where it's more or less a priv

> Copyright is anti-capitalist ...uh, what? Like, if you're referring to, say, some hypothetically limited version of copyright where it's more or less a private right-of-action for artists to sue publishing firms for unpaid work, then sure. That would be anti-capitalist, specifically because the Soviets tried that. As it currently stands copyright is the foundation of modern capitalism. Yes, it doesn't feel like that if you're, say, a right-libertarian or a hardcore free market guy. However, you have to remember that capitalism and a free market are two different things. Capitalists do not care if the market is free, they care if line goes up. They will happily choke off the free market using monopoly power or government power if it will make them more money. A large corporation deciding that you will own nothing and be happy does not make them suddenly hardcore pinko commies. This is just the end stage of capitalism: once you run out of legitimate ways to make a profit, you find ways to steal from others. That's why we used to have antitrust laws[0] to keep companies from becoming democratically unaccountable quazi-governments of their own. And in my opinion the greatest own-goal right-libertarians ever made was campaigning against their use. [0] Antitrust law in the US has been functionally braindead since the "consumer welfare" standard was adopted by a bunch of federal judges litigating from the bench in the 1980s.