Is it just me or is Copyright actually _extremely_ anti-Capitalist?
Main points: 1) Copyright as a concept literally cannot even exist without government intervention. 2) It's basically a certificate to excuse a company from competition.
The main argument I can see against point #1 is that there's gray area as to what requires government intervention. Particularly laws about ownership and theft. However, I would counter that by saying there is NO purpose to copyright other than business. For other things involving ownership and theft there are purposes (like survival) that transcend business. But not for copyrights. It is purely a business concept, through and through. Therefore in any decent Capitalist economy it should be quite unambiguous that government intervention such as copyright is _nothing but_ pure intervention in business. If a company were capable of making data/information/blueprints public and still "owning" it then they wouldn't need a copyright, right? The very existence of copyright is an admission that they can't do it. So they have to cry to mommy and get a written note that says they're excused from the process of Capitalism (excused from competition).
Why should we have to put up with that? If companies cannot make it without copyright then according to the free hand of the market they shouldn't fucking make it at all. Why should I have to pretend there's a magical label on the things I buy which says what I can and can't do with it just because some companies chose to build their entire business models around anti-Capitalist ideals?
Without copyright there is no intellectual property. Without intellectual property there is no stuff. Companies don't deal with copyright, they deal with patents. Without patents there is no intellectual property. Without intellectual property there are no things. Without things then there is no stuff.
Asher Taylor
Is it just me or is Private Property actually _extremely_ anti-Capitalist?
Main points: 1) Private Property as a concept literally cannot even exist without government intervention. 2) It's basically a certificate to excuse a company from competition.
The main argument I can see against point #1 is that there's gray area as to what requires government intervention. Particularly laws about ownership and theft. However, I would counter that by saying there is NO purpose to Private Property other than business. For other things involving ownership and theft there are purposes (like survival) that transcend business. But not for Private Property. It is purely a business concept, through and through. Therefore in any decent Capitalist economy it should be quite unambiguous that government intervention such as private property is _nothing but_ pure intervention in business. If a company were capable of making data/information/blueprints public and still "owning" it then they wouldn't need Private Property, right? The very existence of Private Property is an admission that they can't do it. So they have to cry to mommy and get a written note that says they're excused from the process of Capitalism (excused from competition).
Why should we have to put up with that? If companies cannot make it without Private Property then according to the free hand of the market they shouldn't fucking make it at all. Why should I have to pretend there's a magical label on the things I buy which says what I can and can't do with it just because some companies chose to build their entire business models around anti-Capitalist ideals?
>Without intellectual property there is no stuff. >Without intellectual property there are no things. I disagree.
I think you mean to say >without intellect there is no stuff You don't have to play make-believe that you can give someone else information and still "own" it for anything to exist. That makes no sense.
Michael Brown
Copyrights, Patents, and IP are not anti-Capitalist. (But I think you are confusing the economic system of Capitalism with the political and legal ideas surrounding libertarianism. these are not identical things.) But they are absolutely government created 'rights.' Unlike 'natural law' concepts such as theft, copyrights do not exist without positive law created by legislation. A physical object can be owned because you can exclude others from using it. Your use and occupation of physical property necessary precludes others from doing the same. Two people can't both consume the entirety of the same apple; two people can't occupy the same physical space; etc. Laws about theft require asportation, which is the removal of property from another person AND the depriving of that person the ability to possess the property. IP is not physical, it is ideas. You cannot disposses another person of an idea, you cannot asportate it away from another person. Thats why theres no such thing as theft applied to IP, instead its a 'violation of a government created right.' Your using an idea protected by IP in no way limits another person from using that same idea. IP was created to provide economic incentive to generate ideas. It creates a class of (temporary) property that does not exist or naturally occur in the physical world. It exists solely by government fiat and has the rights associated with it that the government dictates. In that sense it is not libertarian, as it represents a government altering of the natural market place. Many libertarians are against IP, others are for it.
Gabriel Thompson
>If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. >Thomas Jefferson
Justin Taylor
Without copyright the incentives to produce intellectual property are lower. As such although there is government intervention in theory if correctly applied copyright laws create a more efficient system.
Many argue that copyrights have gone too far and give too much incentive nowadays. But I think very few people would actually support completely removing copyright.
Copyrights are anti-ancap not anti-capitalist. Ancaps are retards who don't understand that anarchy is very inefficient and that there needs to be a legitimate use of violence in order to create order in a society.
It's a way to reduce the number of secrets, but forces people to not use it for a decade or two. It is not necessarily anti capitalist but pro corporatist.
Brody Brooks
based and economics-pilled
John Hill
>If a company were capable of making data/information/blueprints public
Lets assume that a company were to invent a new or innovate the process of making data/information/or blueprints.
Something that has never been done before and reduces the time that it takes to make data/information/blueprints by 99%.
Because this company was able to do twice the work in half the amount of time people would pay them to get their product faster.
Say another company is able to steal the process from the company that originated it and they are willing to provide this process at half the cost of the original company. What would happen to the original companies client base?
Let's say various other companies were able to steal the process as well. Now there are 10,000 companies doing the process pioneered by company A. At rock bottom points, all within 3 days of company A's discovery which would have given them a competitive edge.
How does company A benefit from researching and developing this new process? Why even bother to research and develop new process at all?
Dylan Myers
yes it is
Gabriel Bennett
You lack an understanding of what intellectual property is.Perhaps you should get a definition.
Justin Jackson
You are correct. One of the redeeming features of anarcho-capitalism and one of the things that actually makes it anarchic is the rejection of patents and copyrights. "If you steal my bike I don't have a bike, so it's theft, if you copy my bike design, I still have it, so it is not theft." Does kind of make it hard to monetise design though.
It’s the means of production being seized “for our own good.”
Caleb Adams
Most of the world's greatest and most creative inventions came in a time before copyright.
William Robinson
I disagree with all your premises. Without intellectual property there would still be stuff, and you’d be able to more easily make your own stuff.
Dominic Long
lmao I called it here come the ancap retards.
Henry Nelson
>IP was created to provide economic incentive to generate ideas. It creates a class of (temporary) property that does not exist or naturally occur in the physical world. It exists solely by government fiat and has the rights associated with it that the government dictates. All I'm seeing here is you agreeing with me, without saying it.
I'm sorry, I don't recall the concept of Capitalism giving a shit about anyone's armchair opinions on the philosophies of what motivates people to innovate. Whether or not it's "justified" is an entirely separate argument from whether or not it's anti-capitalist.
Anthony Clark
You significantly over estimate your intelligence.
Carson Young
This. If you can't figure out why copyright laws are needed you're retarded. Literally read how how and why it came about.
Aaron Martin
It’s the idea that if you think of a wheel first, I should have to pay you or be imprisoned if I make my own wheel instead of buy yours, and only you can sell wheels other than by your permission. It makes no sense at all except a big company can hire people to basically take away your rights to make more and more stuff over time, locking you in a consumerist nightmare where wealth is funneled to said big companies.
Jason Gonzalez
>"If you steal my bike I don't have a bike, so it's theft, if you copy my bike design, I still have it, so it is not theft."
A bicycle is a physical property. Copyrights and patents protect innovation. If you steal my idea I cannot make money. The sum of the concept of capitalism is for profit, which spurs innovation.
Oliver Baker
I simply reject the notion that nobody will ever come up with new ideas unless they can say "mine!" I reject it outright.
Jose James
Yes, and after the process becomes a stadard, the companies keep trying to find a new edge instead of wasting millions on protecting their edge and stagnating the progress of techniques because muh money!
Ayden Martin
seeing as I posted before you ever did, shouldn't it be you agreeing with me? But my just explaining the concept of IP does not mean I necessarily agree that it is a good thing. But I absolutely recognize that is a government created thing. If one is generally against government involvement they would generally be against IP, as it is property created by government fiat. In any event, I am more against the government created legal entities of limited liability corporations than I am the government created property known as IP.
Zachary Gonzalez
Even if someone steals your idea you can make money. Intellectual Property is the means of production being seized to create artificial scarcity, it’s not for our benefit.
Jonathan Scott
There was no invention before mass production. Name them.
Xavier Sanders
Math
James Ward
There will be less incentive to do so. >come up with an original story and write a book >start selling it >some schmuck copies the book word for word and starts selling it, stealing your customer base this is what anti-copyright dummys want
Andrew Perez
Exactly this.
If people want to say "nobody would be motivated to come up with new ideas unless there is copyright" Isn't that the same thing as thinking "nobody would be motivated to create products if there's competition, so we should get rid of competition"?
Copyright is simply anti-competition, and anti-capitalist. People don't stop making products because of competition, and I am certain people will not stop coming up with new ideas without copyrights. Everyone's just been brainwashed by propaganda like calling copies of data "piracy" and "stealing".
William Torres
Mass Production was Agriculture and for the longest time if you wanted to use whatever method, you could just use it. It didn’t matter if Joe Whoever figured out the method a year ago, he couldn’t ban you from farming the best way just because he happened to think of it first, and this was especially just because many things are independently discovered by people, the guy independently discovered it shouldn’t have forceful control on others reaching that conclusion and profiting off of it.
Wyatt Rivera
>Without intellectual property there would still be stuff
No there wouldn't. There isn't even any stuff now. A niny fraction of the worlds population actually makes and designs stuff. Less than 1%. They are making and designing stuff to make money. You can make your own stuff sure, but you'll be dwarfed by people with a better means of production. They'll take the stuff you make sell it to other people, get rich and laugh at you while they piss on your shoes.
come on, don't be silly mass production has nothing to do with invention or IP. it is a means of organizing industry, primarily by using standardized practices and products, and the assembly line. It never saw any prominence until the Industrial Revolution. Copyrights existed before mass production ever become a popular thing, or understood as a concept in its own right. Inventions existed since the dawn of civilization. Every tool, weapon, vehicle, etc prior to was invented without benefit of IP protection. IP didn't come into common use until the 1600s. Surely you recognize there were inventions prior to that?
Isaac Long
We're past the wheel. We're up to semi-conductors now. How much did it cost to produce the wheel? Who would actually have to buy a wheel once they saw how it worked? How stupid were the people who came before that one guy in the village who figured out the wheel?
Camden Collins
There's a difference between competing against similar ideas and stealing someone's idea in order to "compete" with them. Are you a chink by any chance?
Wyatt Johnson
Copyrights need to exist for formats such as music and movies, because if there was none then there would never be incentive to actually produce any of it. We would end out having to be an economy of physical materials that can't just be copied digitally, because a company could go through all the work of making a song and end out getting fucked on the market because another company literally just copied their work and sells it for a dime at no loss to themselves.
Jayden Richardson
The process only becomes standard after a set number of years. The "person" who discovers the process is rewarded by exclusivity in the application of his/her/their discovery, which allows them to make money.
Carson Bailey
>Who would actually have to buy a wheel once they saw how it worked? Everyone, if copyright and patents existed at the time.
And how harmful to our society would that have been? Just because you're making the mistake (that every generation makes) of thinking it's on top of the world in terms of intelligence doesn't mean you're actually capable of predicting what harm that same mentality of owning the information might do to our future.
Connor King
People with better means of production can be campaigned against socially; many consumers WANT to buy the original product, considering it as a future antique. If you invent something, people still think it’s cool. If you invent something, you should be able to hide how you did it as best you can. If you invent something, others shouldn’t be legally banned from figuring it out themselves and marketing it themselves to compete with you. An invention should not equate to a monopoly. You are a retard if you think people will stop trying to make things. Most people can’t make things as it is because that’s the point of locking down on intellectual property, redistributing ownership of ideas and “right to sell” and “right to manufacture” to the wealthiest fraction of a population.
Christian Foster
If someone steals your idea and sells it for less than you, you will not make money. They will.
Owen Harris
>Copyrights need to exist for formats such as music and movies, because if there was none then there would never be incentive to actually produce any of it Do you people actually put any thought into this stuff? Music has existed since the dawning of mankind.
Luis Rodriguez
Math is an invention? An intellectual property? Who invented "math"?
Nathaniel Harris
maybe, maybe not you are presupposing a few things: 1) that music, movies, etc (IP) is ONLY produced because of economic incentive and no other motive 2) that the current amount of IP generated is better than less IP being generated The first is clearly false, as these things are often produced with no or little regard for actual profitability. And much was created prior to IP protections having been made. (Movie production would probably suffer the most due to its extremely high cost, but visual arts and music would still be commonly created.) 2) is an arguable point. Perhaps the government dictated IP protections skew the market place and create malinvestment? Maybe too much investment is occurring in non physical things such as music and movies? Or maybe too much research and development is occurring such that it costs us in other areas such as capital accumulation and savings?
Gavin Bell
I'd like to spin this around and ask you to explain why math ISN'T IP?
The answer is probably just because your intelligent enough to see how absolutely insane it would be. So you make an exception to your own rules just for things like math, and then you try to pretend that any other type of information is different.
James Lewis
More communist dribble.
One of the few legitimate functions of a government is to protect the property rights of individuals. IPs are private property. Literally the only way for them to exist in commerce is if those IPs are upheld. Otherwise NO ONE would waste the money and effort to develop them if they immediately could be stolen. That or they’d be forced to astronomically increase the price. But 9 times in 10, it will just lead to a life saving drug or gaming changing software never existing.
Stop being a commie parasite. You are not entitled to other people’s labor unless you fucking pay for it first (at a rate they accept).
Sebastian Williams
>Isn't that the same thing as thinking "nobody would be motivated to create products if there's competition, so we should get rid of competition"?
The goal of any business is to eliminate competition. That's why we as consumers are protected by anti trust laws.
Josiah Jenkins
Creative Commons licenses exist for a reason.
Hudson Powell
Intellectual property is a fallacy into itself, thought cannot be property. Property refers to the allocation of resources with various uses. Thoughts are freely made, duplicated, manipulated, and destroyed. One cannot own a thought anymore than one can own a sequence of numbers or letters or symbols. Patent and copyright is a monopoly service of the State leftover from mercantilism. Having a patent or copyright allows a person or group to have monopoly right to an idea through the force of the state that they would otherwise be unable to hold. This can be seen by a single example, wd-40, the chemical makeup of which is a complete secret outside the company, by the LACK of patent, which would have required the secret to be documented and filed away, and which eventually the company in control of the secret would eventually lose the monopoly right to it. By refusing to patent this recipe, and keeping it a secret without the involvement of the government the company enjoys the benefits of a superior product and brand, and other companies are free to compete with their own varieties. Leaving a freer market that benefits all involved.
Austin Bennett
Socialism is a scale and people love being on it Copyright is just the more insidious part of it
David Torres
>if someone steals your idea. If you come up with it first and aren’t retarded you can make money. The Silk Road didn’t have copyright notices. Protect your ideas, keep them secret, and make a profit before your idea can be stolen, using that to compete. If you can’t you are non competitive and shouldn’t be upheld as a forced monopoly. You don’t have a right to success period.
Jordan Martin
Right. And if a company is capable of making information literally public knowledge and preventing them from using it in any useful way at the same time then I say more power to them.
But they can't do that, can they? They can't fucking do it because it's impossible. The ONLY way to achieve it is thought artificial government intervention. >The goal of any business is to eliminate competition yes, but not through government intervention. At least not in Capitalism.
Jayden Flores
You should actually dig into anti trust laws and how they have been enforced. Specifically look into the Texas railroad commission of the early 1900s. You have been hoodwinked by words into believing things of which you have no actual knowledge besides the intent of words.
Parker Hill
I mean, music companies already make more than the artists because the means of production and distribution and advertising are in their hands and they are what move the product. If you got rid of copyright they would just do that all the same but would be under no obligation to give anything to the original artist.
I will add that copyright allows the original producer to retain a piece of ownership over the property. This is wrong. Once the property is sold then the previous owner should no longer have any ownership over the work. I buy a car or a piece of furniture and it is now mine to do what i want with. I could just set them ablaze. I could even buy a book and burn it. But i cannot reproduce that book and sell it to anyone cuz of reasons.
Parker Walker
Agriculture isn't mass production, it is a natural phenomenon. Man did not "invent" corn. Man invented corn that needs 30% less water, and 40% less sunlight to grow. The corn that man invented produces crops that are 7x larger in size and have 36% more natural sugar for flavor. You should read up on Monsanto and seed patents.
Gabriel Brooks
There are times when copyright is exploited to stifle competition, but it's usually agreed that there should be at least some copyright law in place. The problem it's attempting to solve is how property should be handled if it doesn't actually exist. There is a very ambiguous line separating what you thought up and what I thought up. Things like literature and art gets more and more confusing the deeper and more subjective you dive. Copyright is solely a way to differentiate; draw an arbitrary line which humanity can grasp onto for stability.
Hudson Nelson
I would actually argue that record labels are dinosaurs. Relics of the pre-digital age. They don't NEED to exist. This whole domain of discussion right now is in the realm of entertainment. Entertainment isn't going to go anywhere, no matter how little profit it makes. It's a part of life and it will always exist. You're just trying too hard to assume it HAS to turn into a massive corporation, and it doesn't.
Isaiah Taylor
You misunderstand how IP works. IP can be contracted away, i.e. it can be bought and sold, owned, by those other than the actual creators In fact, IP generated by an employee during the course of their employment is owned by the employer, not the actual creator of the idea involved likewise music companies often retain the rights regarding performances (as opposed to composition) and distribution, but in theory the music reps and the artists could come to any agreement regarding IP that they like
John Ward
You should be able to reproduce and sell it, so long as you don’t claim to have written the book. Same as if some dude invented farming, he shouldn’t be able to say “ok now nobody can farm but me.”
Sebastian Wright
Mass produced and distributed CDs isn't the same as going to an orchestral theater. If you're implying that all musical artists should be theater-only and roadside guitar players than you might as well say things like the music industry shouldn't exist.
Christian Morgan
Also if you want even better examples, go watch some youtube videos on how absolutely dumbed down modern music is. It's almost beyond belief.
Why would a music label want to spend all its time hunting down the latest trends when it can actually brainwash the population and control what the trends are in the first place? Mass production isn't always a good thing.
Jeremiah Sanchez
agriculture is a process for producing food, but it is not the food itself. There have been many many inventions in agricultural processes throughout history, many predating even the concept of IP. Things like irrigation, crop rotation, etc.
Justin Morgan
>it is usually agreed Clearly not in this thread, what a bizarre and fake qualifier.
Grayson Flores
No and Yes. No, it gives rights to creators. Yes, mickey mouse and all of disney belongs to the public. No one has the right to live for ever, especially not a cartoon.
Nathan Morales
Fine, I rescind that. Now fucking address my argument, fuckhead.
Colton Torres
Everything humans do is a natural phenomenon, that’s why IP is bullshit.
Brody Brooks
I am aware that what you say is how it currently works. My point is that the artist would not have anything to sell if there was no copyright - a digital copy of their song would only have to be acquired and then it could be sold alongside the original AS the original. Artists in general would have no legal basis for compensation - whether they sell that or not is irrelevant - without copyright (IP).
You didn’t post an argument though. I agree with you that copyright is used as a malicious tool.
Jonathan Lewis
>grasp onto for stability Is this ironic? Slavery is stable.
Robert Reed
Courts have not awarded copyright to certain formulas and other math shit cuz they saw how retarded it would be. Not that the courts aren't usually wrong.
Samuel Powell
Is there anything more jewish than copyright? Except maybe insurance and child molesting? Although piracy is dying but not because of any scummy jewish lawyer, but because most of their movies and music today are total shit only a 4 yr old, a skank or a nigger (though I repeat myself!) would like.
Cameron Baker
Everyone can use math and even sell math specifically because the guy who came up with it didn’t have f-16s preventing others from using it without paying him a tithe.
Henry Howard
So what? Then maybe instead of a million artists who don't actually give a fuck about their own music but just think it's an easier way to try and earn a buck (and producing shit quality music in the process) than to just get a real job.
That sounds like a pretty good tradeoff to me.
Benjamin Russell
lol that didn't come out right. Meant to say that instead of that situation more of them would just get real jobs, and we'd only have a few thousand artists who actually produce their art because it's what they love doing.
Blake Rodriguez
with music artists gain copyrights to two aspects, a copyright in the composition (the sheet music, if you will) and a copyright in any recordings of performances. These are separate things. Writing a song gives me a right to the song itself. Recording a performance gives me a right to that particular recording. Neither right exists without copyright protection. But again its a question of value, a moral question, that one state of being is better than another state of being. Is it a better world with more incentives to create music, even if those incentives are artificially created? Or is it taking resources and labor away from other things that would have been produced instead that perhaps would have a greater net benefit? Difficult to say, but I just want to point out that making that presupposition is a value judgment that is not necessarily a settled thing.
Joshua Roberts
It is not commie dribble to be against IP. Thought cannot be property. It is not fucking physical. See for more. I'm a most firm believer in property rights as a foundation for civilization. We all own ourselves firstly. Property comes from mixing our labor with justly obtained resources. My thoughts are mine until i voice them. Then they belong to anyone else who hears. IP is dog shit.
Nathaniel Anderson
Based and kinsellapilled
Liam Rogers
The concept of copyright deals with intellectual property not inventions which are physical properties. It would probably work better if you knew what the term copyright applied to.
Mass production facilitates mass distribution. Mass Distribution facilitates profit. The first patent was issued in the united states in 1790. The industrial revolution started in 1760. The relationship between invention/patent/and mass production is pretty textbook. You should read it for yourself.
>Everyone, if copyright and patents existed at the time.
What is the name of the person who invented the wheel?
Sebastian Ramirez
Some tripfag from /sci/
Benjamin Morales
You tell me. You're the one who brought it up: >How stupid were the people who came before that one guy in the village who figured out the wheel? What was his name?
Carter Jenkins
If someone can make and sell your product more cheaply at the same quality you are producing it then it's on you to either create a more powerful product or to properly compete monetarily with your opposition. The only thing you relied on was exclusivity and monopolization.
Nicholas Perry
I know darn well the difference between a patent and a copyright, as well as a trademark and a trade secret. All are forms of Intellectual property. It is IP in general about which I am speaking. Copyrights apply to original works of authorship, and apply upon the creation of such works. Patents apply to ideas reducible to practical form, such as inventions or software or industrial processes. Much art was created prior to copyrights being a thing. Many inventions were created prior to patents being a thing. Lets not pretend otherwise.
Caleb Foster
>blocks your path Faggot
Brayden Watson
>People with better means of production can be campaigned against socially; So what? Walmart. Amazon. That's not what happens.
>If you invent something, people still think it’s cool. If you invent something, you should be able to hide how you did it as best you can.
So you admit it is necessary to protect intellectual property.
>If you invent something, others shouldn’t be legally banned from figuring it out themselves and marketing it themselves to compete with you.
That's the thing. They are not figuring it out. They are taking what you did looking at it and reproducing it. They didn't figure it out. They are copying it.
>You are a retard if you think people will stop trying to make things.
You're a retard if you think people make things. Since 1790 there have only been 6 million patents granted in the united states. There are 327 million people in the united states. That's 6 million patents in 227 years. Smart people make things. And smart people are very few.
> that’s the point of locking down on intellectual property, redistributing ownership of ideas and “right to sell” and “right to manufacture” to the wealthiest fraction of a population.
It's not locking down ideas. It's a race to the finish line. If you had the idea first then you should have filed your patent first. The patent system is actually how we are able to determine who had the idea first. There is no barrier to filing patents, aside from "It's been done before".
Jonathan Gomez
>no IP Why put a couple million into developing a solution when Chang and Goldstein will just steal it and undercut you?
Owen Collins
It's pretty basic. "You cannot copyright an idea or concept, only the way that it's expressed. You also cannot copyright a fact, such as "Two plus two equals four.""
You couldn't google that?
Ryan Howard
The OP is about whether it's anti-capitalist or not. >So you admit it is necessary to protect intellectual property. Someone protecting their own IP by their own means is a strategy. Someone asking the government to forcefully allow them to simultaneously broadcast that same information to the whole fucking world but administer spankings to anyone else who uses it is a different story. An anti-Capitalist story.
>You're a retard if you think people make things. >Smart people make things. And smart people are very few. Sounds to me like you're saying patents and copyrights aren't even necessary then right? If so few people actually make anything.
Liam Smith
> The Silk Road The website? Or the trade route between Asia and and "Europe"? Websites aren't intellectual property.
Kayden Thompson
How is it not a "fact" that some company is using an improved method of production which I could apply to my company and increase profit?
Chase King
>And if a company is capable of making information literally public knowledge and preventing them from using it in any useful way at the same time then I say more power to them.
I don't understand your meaning.
>yes, but not through government intervention. At least not in Capitalism.
Government intervention actually prevents this by ensuring there is always an alternative competitor.
Benjamin Roberts
Nature produces food. Nature would produce food without the intervention of man. Creating new food is IP. Giving an ear of corn the genetic properties of a potato is IP because this occurs outside of nature. This is an invention.
Cooper Murphy
For creation there is always a first.
Elijah Jenkins
xD
Adam James
xD
Robert Hernandez
>Much art was created prior to copyrights being a thing.
If I were to copy the Mona Lisa and try to sell it as the Mona Lisa what would I be told?
Isaiah Torres
copyrights are jew just like usury..
Nicholas Watson
>I don't understand your meaning. That's just what copyright is. The ability to make information public and still "own" it and dictate who can and can't use it. Honestly it's just silly on the face of it when you actually say what it is out loud.
Nolan Rodriguez
>1) Copyright as a concept literally cannot even exist without government intervention. >2) It's basically a certificate to excuse a company from competition. Just like property. MHMHMHMHM
