3 ms·

Wikipedia says copyright began as a way to try and control what was printed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

by andy99 3y ago

Wikipedia says copyright began as a way to try and control what was printed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright It's not a capitalist thing specifically, it's a power thing. (See also "misinformation" today)

delichon 3y ago
> It's not a capitalist thing specifically, it's a power thing. I'm rabidly pro capitalist, but can acknowledge that copyright is a property rights thing, which is very much a capitalist thing, but that capitalism plus legal coercion is frequently a toxic combination. As with the other isms.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > that copyright is a property rights thing Copyright is a monopoly on distribution and sale, it does not give anyone "ownership".
  - delichon 3y ago
    Generally ownership of a physical item confers a monopoly on its distribution and sale. Those rights are common parts of the property rights bundle that we call ownership. Whether they're a good policy or not copyrights share those features with other property rights.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I agree that ownership of a physical item general confers both a monopoly on it's distribution and sale. But the inverse (selling or distribution something confers ownership) is not true, see for example selling something on consignment. It's definitely not true for copyrighted works. Copyright, in the US at least, is pretty explicit about it not providing ownership of the thing to the rights holder. It provides the holder with a legal monopoly over the copying, distribution, and (broadly) displaying or building off of it. It does not state that the holder owns the creative work, much less any specific instantiation of it.
      - delichon 3y ago
        It isn't clear which bundle of property rights constitute ownership. For instance there are many many restrictions on distributing and selling things that we are said to own. Some say that means we don't own those things, but I think it's more clear to say that ownership is ambiguous and contingent.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Yes there are restrictions (e.g. ITAR restrictions on certain goods, or on selling raw milk products) on selling certain goods (or how they must be sold) but that's a very different situation than the one we find ourselves in with how copyright is treated for digital goods. But treating copyright as ownership leads to restrictions not just on distribution and selling, but also on their use. There isn't a Banana Millennium Copyright Act that makes it illegal for me to remove the Dole sticker from one I purchased, but the DMCA exists.
- ballenf 3y ago
  I'd argue any restriction on free flow of information is anti-capitalist. Copyright is actually antithetical to property rights, in that it restricts what a person can do with physical goods that they own: I buy paper and toner. Now you're telling me that restricting what configurations of that toner and paper are allowed is pro-property rights? Do I really own the paper and toner if I can't configure them in any way I wish?
  - andy99 3y ago
    Agreed, certainly from the perspective of free market limited government intervention capitalism, government enforced restrictions on imaginary property are inconsistent. I'd agree that on the colloquial use of capitalism to mean more just naked profit seeking, I think it is consistent to want the government to lend you it's police etc for free to protect profits and prevent competition.
richbell 3y ago
> It's not a capitalist thing specifically, it's a power thing. > > (See also "misinformation" today) Those aren't mutually exclusive. We live in a capitalist society; money is power.
- DamnYuppie 3y ago
  Truly curious but in which form of society that has existed since the invention of money has money not been power? My read of the major types of societal power structures money has always had a large seat at the power table.
  - kbolino 3y ago
    Money can buy some power, but power is power. Power can create money, destroy money, redistribute money, etc. Even in a capitalist society, money is weaker than other forms of power, it's just easy to measure.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    Until the industrial revolution, land was power far more than money. Wealthy merchants may have lived well, but it was the aristocrats who owned the land who really ran things. And that land wasn't purchased but inherited.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  With the word "specifically" in there, they are mutually exclusive in this situation.
  - richbell 3y ago
    The comment they were responding to never claimed it was "specific" to capitalism, so that's a moot point.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Arguing that something is inherent to human nature (which power is) is a very reasonable counterargument to someone blaming capitalism. Even if they didn't use the word "specific"! It's not a moot point.
RobotToaster 3y ago
It seems like a big coincidence that 1660 is usually considered when England ceased to be a feudal state and became a capitalist state (Tenures Abolition Act 1660), and 1662 is when copyright was first invented.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  Ceased to be a feudal state eh? Who's the largest landowner in England? All that happened is the landlords figured out how to get peasants to pay for their own security.

by andy99 3y ago

delichon 3y ago

> It's not a capitalist thing specifically, it's a power thing. I'm rabidly pro capitalist, but can acknowledge that copyright is a property rights thing, which is very much a capitalist thing, but that capitalism plus legal coercion is frequently a toxic combination. As with the other isms.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> that copyright is a property rights thing Copyright is a monopoly on distribution and sale, it does not give anyone "ownership".
- delichon 3y ago
  Generally ownership of a physical item confers a monopoly on its distribution and sale. Those rights are common parts of the property rights bundle that we call ownership. Whether they're a good policy or not copyrights share those features with other property rights.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I agree that ownership of a physical item general confers both a monopoly on it's distribution and sale. But the inverse (selling or distribution something confers ownership) is not true, see for example selling something on consignment. It's definitely not true for copyrighted works. Copyright, in the US at least, is pretty explicit about it not providing ownership of the thing to the rights holder. It provides the holder with a legal monopoly over the copying, distribution, and (broadly) displaying or building off of it. It does not state that the holder owns the creative work, much less any specific instantiation of it.
    - delichon 3y ago
      It isn't clear which bundle of property rights constitute ownership. For instance there are many many restrictions on distributing and selling things that we are said to own. Some say that means we don't own those things, but I think it's more clear to say that ownership is ambiguous and contingent.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Yes there are restrictions (e.g. ITAR restrictions on certain goods, or on selling raw milk products) on selling certain goods (or how they must be sold) but that's a very different situation than the one we find ourselves in with how copyright is treated for digital goods. But treating copyright as ownership leads to restrictions not just on distribution and selling, but also on their use. There isn't a Banana Millennium Copyright Act that makes it illegal for me to remove the Dole sticker from one I purchased, but the DMCA exists.
ballenf 3y ago
I'd argue any restriction on free flow of information is anti-capitalist. Copyright is actually antithetical to property rights, in that it restricts what a person can do with physical goods that they own: I buy paper and toner. Now you're telling me that restricting what configurations of that toner and paper are allowed is pro-property rights? Do I really own the paper and toner if I can't configure them in any way I wish?
- andy99 3y ago
  Agreed, certainly from the perspective of free market limited government intervention capitalism, government enforced restrictions on imaginary property are inconsistent. I'd agree that on the colloquial use of capitalism to mean more just naked profit seeking, I think it is consistent to want the government to lend you it's police etc for free to protect profits and prevent competition.

richbell 3y ago

> It's not a capitalist thing specifically, it's a power thing. > > (See also "misinformation" today) Those aren't mutually exclusive. We live in a capitalist society; money is power.

DamnYuppie 3y ago
Truly curious but in which form of society that has existed since the invention of money has money not been power? My read of the major types of societal power structures money has always had a large seat at the power table.
- kbolino 3y ago
  Money can buy some power, but power is power. Power can create money, destroy money, redistribute money, etc. Even in a capitalist society, money is weaker than other forms of power, it's just easy to measure.
- jhbadger 3y ago
  Until the industrial revolution, land was power far more than money. Wealthy merchants may have lived well, but it was the aristocrats who owned the land who really ran things. And that land wasn't purchased but inherited.
Dylan16807 3y ago
With the word "specifically" in there, they are mutually exclusive in this situation.
- richbell 3y ago
  The comment they were responding to never claimed it was "specific" to capitalism, so that's a moot point.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Arguing that something is inherent to human nature (which power is) is a very reasonable counterargument to someone blaming capitalism. Even if they didn't use the word "specific"! It's not a moot point.

RobotToaster 3y ago

It seems like a big coincidence that 1660 is usually considered when England ceased to be a feudal state and became a capitalist state (Tenures Abolition Act 1660), and 1662 is when copyright was first invented.

llamaimperative 3y ago
Ceased to be a feudal state eh? Who's the largest landowner in England? All that happened is the landlords figured out how to get peasants to pay for their own security.