4 ms·

It's not about "people downloading shit for free" and it has never been about that. Nobody downloads things "for free," there are real costs associated with dow

It's not about "people downloading shit for free" and it has never been about that. Nobody downloads things "for free," there are real costs associated with downloading anything on the internet. If these companies wanted a cut of that it would make significantly more sense for them to lobby for more subsidization funded by a tax on general internet or computer use; computers are pervasive enough that this would be pretty profitable for them. This is not the route they chose though, they instead chose to attack people's free speech by redefining the word "property" for their own purposes. Obviously they chose to do it this way because it grants them significantly more power when an entire branch of law is devoted to the restrictions they can impose by being "copyright holders," rather than them just receiving simple monetary kickbacks. And this is their goal: to gain power over you and I.

tzs 13y ago
> This is not the route they chose though, they instead chose to attack people's free speech by redefining the word "property" for their own purposes Nope. The term "intellectual property" has been used with its current meaning for well over 150 years, long before the companies you refer to existed. They are not redefining "property".
- spacelizard 13y ago
  It doesn't really matter how old the use (or in this case, misuse) of the term is. It is still an affront to the way we consider property in all other aspects. Just because they were doing it a long time ago does not make it any less invalid now.
  - tzs 13y ago
    It is quite consistent with the way we consider property in all other aspects. In law, property is any thing, tangible or intangible whereby a legal relationship between persons and the State enforces a possessory interest or legal title in that thing. It has never been limited to just physical things the way modern revisionists are trying to claim.
rayiner 13y ago
> This is not the route they chose though, they instead chose to attack people's free speech by redefining the word "property" for their own purposes. Property rights over intangible things is part of the definition of "property" for hundreds of years. They're part of the definition of "property"--no "redefining" needed.

tzs 13y ago

> This is not the route they chose though, they instead chose to attack people's free speech by redefining the word "property" for their own purposes Nope. The term "intellectual property" has been used with its current meaning for well over 150 years, long before the companies you refer to existed. They are not redefining "property".

spacelizard 13y ago
It doesn't really matter how old the use (or in this case, misuse) of the term is. It is still an affront to the way we consider property in all other aspects. Just because they were doing it a long time ago does not make it any less invalid now.
- tzs 13y ago
  It is quite consistent with the way we consider property in all other aspects. In law, property is any thing, tangible or intangible whereby a legal relationship between persons and the State enforces a possessory interest or legal title in that thing. It has never been limited to just physical things the way modern revisionists are trying to claim.

rayiner 13y ago

> This is not the route they chose though, they instead chose to attack people's free speech by redefining the word "property" for their own purposes. Property rights over intangible things is part of the definition of "property" for hundreds of years. They're part of the definition of "property"--no "redefining" needed.