7 ms·
I don't think the authors of the books would agree. Of course intellectual property is not real, but it's no less real than "property" of any kind, so if you do
by root_axis 2y ago
I don't think the authors of the books would agree. Of course intellectual property is not real, but it's no less real than "property" of any kind, so if you don't object to the idea of property rights, it's not clear to me why people who create digital products are less worthy of economic protection than those who create physical ones.
- shadowgovt 2y agoBecause lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. We grant limited monopolies on created works to incentivize the creation of the works, but that's it. There's no deeper moral grounding. Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore; they created impressions in the minds of other people and those impressions belong to those other people, by natural right. You're right that it's just as sound a property right as every other, but it's one that cuts remarkably against the grain of the underlying natural rights (for a specific perceived societal benefit), and it should always be evaluated as such. Every generation should be asking "Does the current copyright regime create more good than harm?" And every generation should correct if the answer is 'no.'
- Dalewyn 2y ago>Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore Literally everyone from the richest of commercial interests to the kumbaya-est of libre interests will disagree.
- shadowgovt 2y agoAnd in the context of natural rights, they'd be wrong. Natural rights are fairly easily thumbnail-sketched by "What are your rights if you're on a desert island?" Out of the context of any preexisting society, what rights would you have? On a desert island, if I find some words scrawled ten feet high on a cliffside, I may do with the ideas in those words what I will: copy them, change them 'round, claim they came from me, claim they came from god. Similarly if I hear some mountain hermit shouting them from their cave. The natural rights as apply to ideas are very, very liberal. We in modern societies (and only recently) have taken up the experiment of constraining those rights with temporarily and contextual monopolies to incentivize creation of more ideas via property law. This works, but in a clunky, hackish way; it is a strange kind of "theft" that leaves us with more of something than when we started. And like all good wild hacks, it deserves to be considered for refactoring frequently.
- root_axis 2y ago> Because lighting your candle from mine doesn't diminish my candle's brightness. So are you saying authors don't deserve any compensation for their work unless they produce books in physical form?
- User23 2y agoSo you are saying people don’t deserve the right to build on public ideas without, ultimately, having armed men use violence to take money from them or forbidding them altogether? Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen. Perhaps it’s best not to use straw men and loaded terms designed to emotionally appeal to five year olds when discussing enclosure of the intellectual commons?
- root_axis 2y ago> Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen Yes, that's how property rights - and in fact all rights afforded through civilized society - are enforced. If you have a problem with that take it up with literally the entirety of recorded human history.
- User23 2y agoThat is an hilariously authoritarian view and wrong to boot. You are confusing rights that are created by the threat of violence, such as copyright, and rights that are protected by the threat of violence, such as the right to not be killed for no reason. Needless to say there is no inherent right for an author to profit from copyright. It is a wholly constructed right. They do not "deserve" it. Perhaps a society chooses to organize itself that way and perhaps it doesn't. On the other hand, innocent people really do deserve to not get murdered.
- root_axis 2y agoAm I understanding correctly that your position is that the enforcement of property rights is authoritarian? Or is your position that copyright is not a form of property rights, and thus authoritarian?
- Dalewyn 2y agoI agree, though with one semantic nitpick: The digital nature of a work doesn't matter. It says right there on the tin, intellectual property; a la any work ("property") that is a product of human intellect.
- root_axis 2y agoActually I agree with you, but I refer to the digital aspect because people don't seem to have any difficulties understanding why its problematic to steal physical books.
- crtified 2y agoWhich contains its own irony, as the trees providing the primary material the physical books are made from would probably have a thing or two to say about the notion of being stolen from.
- root_axis 2y agoI don't see any irony in it since trees don't have brains or opinions as far as we know, but when they decide to say something about it I'll definitely be sure to listen. Short of that though, I'm generally not opposed to the production of paper.