3 ms·

Sorry but yes, the consumer's only option is to take it or leave it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's work. I see this as the very defini

by Zetice 4y ago

Sorry but yes, the consumer's only option is to take it or leave it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's work. I see this as the very definition to entitlement; that you must be allowed to use something, even if you don't want to use it the way the owner of the thing wants you to use it.

temp10298385 4y ago
Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’. We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs. In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information. ”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information. Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.
- Zetice 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - account42 4y ago
    So-called "intellectual property" is not property. Copyright "ownership" is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on copying rights.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Property “ownership” is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on land/object rights. But fair, once you throw out a key concept of capitalism, the whole thing kind of falls apart. Guess all the benefits of capitalism aren’t worth it for you…
omniglottal 4y ago
So an employer must be allowed to use the employee and their product, even if that employee doesn't want their work to be used that way... this is selfish privilege assumed by the employer? The owner of a body may not want it to be used the way the employer deems necessary. The artist may not want their art to be used for unethical ppurposes. The producer of labor and art is taken (paid) or left (to die, penniless). But you're right: their employer is not entitled to the product of their employee's work. Thanks for putting this so clearly.
gameman144 4y ago
I get this mindset, but there are also loads of cases where society overrules this. Consider the case of VCRs/DVRs: the cable companies said "this is for live viewing", but people wanted to record video. There was big pushback, but it was ruled that people have the right to use the video that way, even if television channels don't want them to. We don't have a right to the labor of someone else, but if we're consuming the fruits of that labor, there's a case to be made that we should be allowed to do so how we see fit. For instance, your current fork is "if you don't like the company's terms, don't use the company's products". Another fork that we could use might be "if companies don't like the users' consumption practices, they can exit business or change their product".

by Zetice 4y ago

temp10298385 4y ago

Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’. We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs. In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information. ”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information. Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.

Zetice 4y ago
[flagged]
- account42 4y ago
  So-called "intellectual property" is not property. Copyright "ownership" is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on copying rights.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Property “ownership” is nothing more than government-granted monopoly on land/object rights. But fair, once you throw out a key concept of capitalism, the whole thing kind of falls apart. Guess all the benefits of capitalism aren’t worth it for you…

omniglottal 4y ago

So an employer must be allowed to use the employee and their product, even if that employee doesn't want their work to be used that way... this is selfish privilege assumed by the employer? The owner of a body may not want it to be used the way the employer deems necessary. The artist may not want their art to be used for unethical ppurposes. The producer of labor and art is taken (paid) or left (to die, penniless). But you're right: their employer is not entitled to the product of their employee's work. Thanks for putting this so clearly.

gameman144 4y ago

I get this mindset, but there are also loads of cases where society overrules this. Consider the case of VCRs/DVRs: the cable companies said "this is for live viewing", but people wanted to record video. There was big pushback, but it was ruled that people have the right to use the video that way, even if television channels don't want them to. We don't have a right to the labor of someone else, but if we're consuming the fruits of that labor, there's a case to be made that we should be allowed to do so how we see fit. For instance, your current fork is "if you don't like the company's terms, don't use the company's products". Another fork that we could use might be "if companies don't like the users' consumption practices, they can exit business or change their product".