4 ms·

> 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, whic

> 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.

_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.