Message from @whiic
Discord ID: 544653955330736180
own work that you produced? how absurd
Copyright is an interesting topic that we are all probably more likely to actually convince each other of
I personally think copyright is mostly obsolete now
@Unwound Well, that applies more to copyright than to land. And you can modify the land, but you didn't create it.
property rights only count for scarce resources. You can't steal am idea.
On the other hand, if copyright was a legit property, what is the libertarian argument against Cultural Appropriation?
At one point due to the scarcity of information copyright was useful to promote the distribution of IP
But that isn't quite a thing anymore
The purpose of copyright has always been the control of information.
Tim is awake
Thr libertarian case against IP.
He was asking for the one *for* IP tho.
Speaking of which, Discord is absolutely proprietary
That's a contradiction. What's the communist argument for capitalism?
Nah, I was asking against. But I was particularly asking it from @Unwound because he said "own work that you produced? how absurd" and I found it a particularly retarded thing to say.
I'm definitely against intellectual monopolies, as they aren't even tangible goods but just ideas. You cannot own an idea, if you cannot even own a nigger.
Hippity hoppity.
```[Women] are “economic land,” because they are equivalent to physical land in being original, nature-given factors of production. Yet will anyone deny title to a cow to the man that finds and domesticates her, putting her to use? For this is precisely what occurs in the case of land. Previously valueless “wild” land, like wild animals, is taken and transformed by a man into goods useful for man. The “mixing” of labor gives equivalent title in one case as in the other.
-Murray N. Rothbard.```
Always funny how we go to the past for the reasons to move forward and ignore the present for reasons to do the same.
I think TP underestimates what's going on in the true alt-right. Richard Spencer's channel and discord server are only growing, and the Murdoch Murdoch crew is as popular as ever.
Basic copyright seems necessary when it comes to art.
Personally, I would be willing to give up "art as we know it" for fully open source society, but I imagine professional artists being upset over this.
When it comes to science there is both big pros and cons.
But with recent Youtube policy of demonetizing videos for having seconds of other person's footage, which used to fall under "fair use", I think pretty much everyone (except big corporations) is in favor of reducing copyrights.
I don't think art will die if copyright did.
and plop https://pastebin.com/nHD257Af
"art as we know it"
Whether it's painting something on canvas, mural or Sistine chappel, copyright doesn't even come to it.
"art" as we know it
And lots of digital arts is released on other funding models to begin with such as Patreon.
Commissions.
preemptive response
https://pastebin.com/WEXBpiKb
Comissions for what? You can just take someone else's photo and edit it a bit and there you go. Why pay comissions
Considering it's illegal to take photographs outside, with a known building on the background, behind your friend, I think pressure to destroying copyright is already past the point of salvaging copyright.
Which country are we talking about?
And the CP promoters are just pushing more and more dystopian levels of protection, more dystopian levels of monitoring, and more dystopian jurisdictions for both police and private investigators. And extortion letters, etc.
In the USA at least you can't actually be prevented from taking pictures on public property last time I checked
@Yuukimaru Some countries in Europe has copyright extended to architecture. And the consider the copyright to belong to the architect, not the photographer.
Ok. I still think reducing copyright is more politically viable than abolishing it completely
Same could be said about fixing the EU.