You have to be a retard to unironically believe that intellectual property is something that should exist...

It exists to artificially encourage originally you brainlet

Attached: 1521141605467.png (1128x640, 42K)

>Do I need to go on, faggot?
Yes, because the point you've made is not getting across. You can physically own a copy of a book, you can own a CD, but do you own a copy that your friend made? No.
Then don't give your ideas away to everyone, use trade secrets, live shows, concerts?

>use trade secrets, live shows, concerts?
why rely on an unreliable secondary source of income when you could just have intellectual property? The idea itself is the valuable thing, not you touring and playing the same song over and over again when anyone can just listen to a recording whenever they want

Musicians that gig literally make only 5 - 10% from online downloads, and that's including the people who watch their live shows that buy the albums afterwards, how is that a reliable source of income?

Musicians in the modern era get shafted no matter what. They have to play gigs, but they make shit money doing so. In the past their records made millions, billions, and it all got gobbled up by the record companies. The point is that it's the idea itself that is valuable. So why are you suggesting it shouldn't be property that you can make money from directly?

Did you forget the thread you made? We're talking about whether you own the things you created.
If you write a sing, its yours.
If you write a book, it's yours.
If you write a movie script, it's yours.
What an ass shit troll lol

Lack of IP protections is why the Chinese gaming industry is an exploitative P2W shithole where the games are carbon copies of each other. When nobody is willing to pay up-front for your game and other devs are happy to rip off any fresh ideas you have, the only viable business model becomes producing short-lived throwaway software-as-a-service games.

People don't buy the albums because of copyright anyway, so why does that matter? They buy it because they themselves think it's valuable. A fully online musician isn't making much money unless if they're working on contract or doing fiverr commisions, neither of which relies on copyright.

>If you write a sing, its yours.
>If you write a book, it's yours.
>If you write a movie script, it's yours.
Okay, and then when you release it and it becomes distributed to thousands of computers on the web, all those copies are yours? No.

...Yes, that's why you get paid for them...
Holy shit you're retarded.

If they weren't yours, why are you the one getting paid. You can't answer that though.

The concept of intellectual property is fine. The problem occurs when copyright and patent laws extend to unreasonable limits, like the 60+ years after the death of the original owner we're currently at. There's literally nothing wrong with a 10 year cutoff.

Are you an idiot
Copyright ensures that only the people who hold the rights to the IP can legally print and sell the records and therefore make money from it
If the system worked that would mean the musician who made a really good song would get rich off it
But music is a terrible example because captialism fucked them over in a different way
A better example is software
If I make software that's really good, I can sell it because I own the IP and I can make a lot of money off it. Without IP I'd have to make money through unreliable secondary sources like donation or maintenance. Why is that a good thing?

The core of the issue, at least IMO, is that a good idea is a free lunch machine. It's a form of value that creates more net value, because you can copy it and wind up with something more valuable than the labor and resources it cost you.

A sense of economic fairness dictated by equivalent exchange is ill-equipped to handle situations like this, where people can use their minds to build magical abstract infinite value-generating machines. That's why intellectual property law and the choice not to have intellectual property law both make perfect sense.

Which is to say, when you create an idea -- which, being an idea, can generate unlimited net value through replication -- to whom does that unlimited net value belong? To you, because you created the abstract machine generating it? Sure, that makes sense. To everyone, because you're not doing anything to deserve that extra value, and it's more fair for it to benefit all of society? Sure, that also makes sense. Only one of the two can be true, and there's no reason for it to be one over the other.

>Without IP I'd have to make money through unreliable secondary sources like donation or maintenance.
Or you could just make money by withholding the software as a trade secret and only agreeing to release it to the public domain once a concrete predetermined pledge is met that you feel reflects the value of the labor you put into it, rather than sitting on your ass making money forever for something you only had to do once, and then later if you need money again you can make it by writing more software. You know, in other words, you could work, and get paid for the work you actually do. That's how a job is supposed to be.

Dont bother. This sub is dead. Overrun by fags from /v/ and Jow Forums.

Except you don't get paid for them because everyone downloads them for free unless if they really like it (not dependant on copyright).

>you could just make money by withholding the software as a trade secret and only agreeing to release it to the public domain once a concrete predetermined pledge is met that you feel reflects the value of the labor you put into it
are you fucking serious
thats the dumbest business model for releasing software I've ever fucking heard of
Who the fuck is going pay for that? It's basically ransomware
>sitting on your ass making money forever for something you only had to do once
why is this wrong?
>That's how a job is supposed to be.
Lol, according to what standard? Starting to sound awfully communist in here

>getting paid for doing literally nothing is not communism
okay buddy

That's illegal.
Why do you think it's illegal?
Because it's theft.
Why is it theft?
BECAUSE THE CREATOR OWNS IT.
Fucking retard.

Attached: 7B70FDE799FB4CB4834D69CBBDF662AF.jpg (500x375, 60K)

You can't own something that is infinite,retard.

You're getting paid for the idea you have. If you create a society that values only labour and not creativity, you've halfway to communism, and a society that does not value ideas is not a prosperous society (see the USSR)

Who owns it?
>the creator
Why do you say they own it?
>because they get paid for it
Why do they get paid for it?
>because it's illegal not to pay for it
Why is it illegal?
>because the creator owns it

What a wonderful circle of "logic." Calling piracy theft is just a cherry on top.

If it's illegal, then why does everyone do it? The system doesn't seem to work, now does it? If anything it creates large content monopolies that restrict cultural output rather than encourage it.

It's not SUPPOSED to be infinite, retard. It's only "infinite" because faggots like you distribute it without the creators knowledge.
Which is illegal.
Because it's literal theft.

>Who the fuck is going pay for that? It's basically ransomware
>crowdfunding is basically ransomware
Dumbest thing I've read all year.
>why is this wrong?
Because that money has to come from somewhere. Under the intellectual property model, people get paid to do nothing, which conversely means the consumers who buy copies of the IP have to pay more than what they're getting is worth. After all, worth is created by labor. You can't make something that's worth more than how hard you work on it, regardless of whether that worth is physical or mental. If you work on something once, it's only worth the work you put into it once, so if you get paid the work you put into it an indefinite number of times in succession, someone somewhere is inevitably getting ripped off.

Everyone doing something doesn't make it right.
And you faggots wonder why the music industry is going down the shitter.
Why should somebody work hard when they literally know their work is going to be stolen?

>copying is theft
So making a copy of my friend's bike deprives him of his bike?

Copyright is fundamentally pro-capitalist but has no economic merit. There is no scarcity when it comes to copyrightable material such as software. It is a flaw of capitalism that MUST be met with comprise if the advancement of technology and quality of life is to improve.

>1s and 0s on my hard drive
>Plugged into my computer
>In my house
But somehow, you think you own it. Great meme.

Your friend didnt create his bike, faggot.
If your friend created a new bike and you copied the schematics, that would be theft.

And that's what we're talking about.

>insert "people say he doesn't even know what a meme is anymore" meme

Only the old music industry of large record labels has gone down the shitter. New independent labels thrive with their new platforms. They all seem to work hard even though their work gets stolen all the time.

When you "release it," you are typically selling the rights to it to a publisher in exchange for a lump sum, plus a percentage of the profits.

>If your friend created a new bike and you copied the schematics, that would be theft.
How so? The paper I copy the schematics onto is my paper, isn't it?

crowdfunding is where you raise money to make something. If you're already made it and say "I'll only release it for a million dollars" you're holding it to ransom. But I see your point, crowdfunding isn't a sustainable business model for the entire industry though
>worth is created by labor
is the problem with your thinking
worth can be created through labour
but ideas have worth, and ideas are not created through labour
If you decide only labour is worth anything, people won't bother with ideas, no new technology or culture will be developed because nobody stands to gain anything from doing so
What you say has some validity in areas like patents, where you actually discover something everyone can use but it's only your idea and thus you could make money from it forever, but for things that are purely ideas and not discoveries like music, art, most software, the copyright system more or less works

Not by choice. They are FORCED to make their money through other avenues.
Why do you think current musicians are so autistic about selling their merch and getting on every podcast they can?
Because they're not making any money off of their actual music.

IPs are socialist af user

Sure, and your SS# and CC# are now mine because I copied them into my pad
See how retarded you sound?

>wanting to keep everything to yourself is socialist
Explain yourself retard.

>but ideas have worth, and ideas are not created through labour
I don't agree with the latter claim. I believe any and all ideas with worth are created through mental labour equal to the worth that results, and any idea created without even any mental labour input is inherently worthless. I also believe the worth in ideas can't truly be copied without some kind of equivalent labour expense by someone somewhere in the picture. I refuse to admit the notion of any possible violation of the principle of equivalent exchange.

If you did that, I'd agree the numbers themselves, as they exist on your pad, belong to you. Naturally, that doesn't mean the services accessible through those numbers, that have been assigned to me, now belong to you. Only the numbers themselves do, and only the specific instances of those numbers you've written down.

>I believe any and all ideas with worth are created through mental labour equal to the worth that results
I saw you post this retarded idea in another thread
You are absolutely, empirically wrong
Many of the ideas considered most valuable to humanity came from absolutely nothing
From an dream someone had
Someone might spend their life working on thing A and create thing B in a few days as a flight of fancy and thing B becomes the only thing they're even remembered for
The most talented musicians barely do any work at all and spend all day doing drugs
There's so many ways to prove you wrong you have to be insane to believe that

Not all the labour is necessarily your own. Sometimes it comes from other people, or even other species, particularly after the fact. That's called exploitation. That's the primary means by which an idea can have its worth inflated beyond the labor put into it by the person who came up with it.

>Let's send people to prison for making a copy of a file on their machine
>Will someone please think of the musicians?

IP should exist but it should only last long enough to recoup development costs. Otherwise you have the system as it is now; a few monopolies sitting on their thumbs and killing market development because their old shit has been economically streamlined and any new shit they come up with but don't want to use becomes inaccessible for decades.

>Many of the ideas considered most valuable to humanity came from absolutely nothing
Literally impossible. The caveman didn't think of the wheel out of the blue, he saw something round and thought it might be useful. Likewise, a musician can't just make music out of a vacuum, he needs knowledge of music theory (implied or formal) and the knowledge to play an instrument. Ideas don't come from a vacuum, they are amalgamations of other ideas, answers to questions, and conclusions reached on things.

The growing of crops is created without any mental labor, and the harvesting can be done by literal high school dropouts huffing the ether in their tractors. Do you think that food is worthless? If so, why do you consume it?

Again, absolutely emperically wrong
Who put the work in to make the best singers the best singers? And do you think the best singers are the ones who put the most practise (work) into getting there? Because they aren't. Your theory is ridiculous. Ideas are not energy.

I never said mental labour was the only kind of labour. It's all the labour overall that has to add up to the worth, not the mental labour specifically.

>Likewise, a musician can't just make music out of a vacuum, he needs knowledge of music theory (implied or formal) and the knowledge to play an instrument. Ideas don't come from a vacuum, they are amalgamations of other ideas, answers to questions, and conclusions reached on things.
Don't speak about subjects you know nothing about

Friendly reminder that genetic code can be patented. If you were born with a certain gene and attempted to publish research you did ON YOUR OWN BODY, it's possible to be sent to jail because someone else "owns" that piece of you.

Attached: croc.jpg (3888x2592, 3.01M)

>Who put the work in to make the best singers the best singers?
I doubt any of us know their names. Those in the music industry probably don't know either. That's because the people who put in that work pay with their lives, don't even know what they're paying for, and never accomplish anything of worth. The accomplishments of worth are left to the musicians themselves, with stolen labour very indirectly extracted by force. Very indirectly. We're talking butterfly effect level.

Ok, well then, lets take that statement down a road. You propose that all labor has worth.

I take sugar, flour, apples, cinnamon, and all the other ingredients necessary to make an apple pie, and attempt to make one. However, I put it in the oven, turn it up to 450 degrees F, and leave it in there for 24 hours. When I take it out of the oven, the finished product is a pile of ash. What is the value for the labor?

>Don't speak about subjects you know nothing about
Not an argument. Ideas don't form from vacuum, just like how musicians can't make music without knowing how to do so (from someone who has done so before).

Applying that logic to our previous discussion-
The filename would belong to you, but not the contents themselves (the song/movie)
I eagerly await your response.

>You propose that all labor has worth.
Wrong. I propose that all worth must come from labour.

Now you're talking about a completely unprovable theory you have with no basis in reality

You don't understand how musicians have ideas

So what labor went into the apple tree producing apples for said pie? What is that labor worth?

I disagree. The instance of the song / movie, as you have copied it, would belong to you, because that data is not a service. The service analog -- the right to have the studio make you more content -- would *not* belong to you.

Musicians don't have ideas from magic smoke, moron. They need to have learned something about music, even by just hearing other music, to be able to make music at all.

>Musicians don't have ideas from magic smoke, moron
They do, more or less. You need to build skill, but the skill is only the vessel. That's how creativity works. You can have high skill and have no creative ideas at all

Basis in history. European world conquest.

The labour that went into the apple tree includes labour by everyone who's ever watered it, labour by everyone who's ever contributed their own usable energy to the contents of its soil in some way, labour by the ancestors of the tree to produce its gametes, labour by the tree itself to grow. The worth of that labour, I'd say, is the worth of the wood plus the worth of the apples.

How is that an unprovable theory? Musicians always work upon principles and ideas that have been established by hundreds of different people, regurgitated, and transmitted to them somehow, but none of those people get paid for the work that they did to get said musician his work.

And you do because?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point - you've contradicted yourself every other comment.

Where did I ever contradict myself? Bearing in mind, of course, that this was my first post in this comment chain:

But you can't have any skill and write an entire opera, now can you? Creativity does not exist without a certain level of skill.

>Basis in history. European world conquest.
Has nothing to do with intellectual property, what the fuck are you talking about?

He's talking about this wierdass theory he has that all value, even ideas, comes from energy
Like the people with the best ideas are the ones who ate the most

Maybe it does potentially, it just has no way to be expressed. You can see creatively gifted children before they've honed their skills. You need skill, but creativity is not the skill

Hey stop copying my character! You have to follow my rules or you're not allowed to use it! That's stealing!!1

Attached: originalpost.png (540x220, 50K)

Dear newfag - if you interject yourself into a conversation it's common courtesy to say "not op" or "not the guy you're replying to".

>includes labour by everyone who's ever watered it,
The sky.
>everyone who's ever contributed their own usable energy to the contents of its soil in some way
Nobody.
>labour by the ancestors of the tree to produce its gametes
Do you pay the tree's ancestors for their labor?
>labour by the tree itself to grow
Do you pay the tree for its labor?
>The worth of that labour, I'd say, is the worth of the wood plus the worth of the apples.
That is an incredibly subjective and vague measurement of worth. Furthermore, you define it's worth by using the very word you are attempting to define, which is a philosophical faux pas.

Your definition is also incredibly complex, despite the fact that it is so vague. Your definition, as it stands, lends credence to the argument that "worth is subjective," and is better defined by what someone is willing to pay.

Keep on rocking, equivalent exchange user. As for the rest of you, even Jow Forums has more intelligent contrarians than this. Get your shit together.

>Has nothing to do with intellectual property, what the fuck are you talking about?
The world is divided in levels of societal development because of wars. The continued existence of that divide represents the transparent exploitation enabled by the spoils of said wars. Said exploitation in turn facilitates the conception and realization of fantastical or leisurely ideas, thus artificially inflating their value beyond the labour supplied by the person who came up with the ideas (because further labour is being supplied by the distant exploitation that permeates all first-world society).
>Like the people with the best ideas are the ones who ate the most
I dunno, that sounds pretty dumb.

you rely on the state to tell wether an arbitrary combination of concept is yours or not
idk sounds very socialist to me
t. libertarian

wether and arbitrary combination lf concepts*

fuck I'm retarded

>The world is divided in levels of societal development because of wars
And ideas. Europe wasn't always the center of civilization, after the Roman empire fell that moved to the Middle East, but then it moved back to Europe again, mainly because of ideas, technologies, new ways of thinking which allowed Europeans to move ahead of the rest of the world and then go out and colonize it by force. The renaissance didn't happen because of a war

Equivalent exchange was itself disproven in the anime that made the ideology so popular in the modern age. "A life for a life has never been enough." "Some things can't be measured on a simple scale."

Regardless of creativity, no idea is novel. No idea is the result of solely one person's thought, and if they decide to show everyone this idea, why should the viewers not be able to use their idea as freely as the artist, assuming none of them masquerade as the arist himself (fraud)?

Yes thanks yuo are smart. I still stand by what I've said despite having my ass handed to me but seeing as how I do it fact acknowledge you're victory I'm going to bed now nite

>if they decide to show everyone this idea, why should the viewers not be able to use their idea as freely as the artist, assuming none of them masquerade as the arist himself (fraud)?
That's kind of how it works today. I can make a video game for example and sell it, and someone else can come along and make a very similar video game, but so long as it's not exactly the same and doesn't technically use the assets I've created they're allowed to do so. I think that's fair

>New white paper published, describes a novel medical technique that could save your life
>Your local hospital can't afford to subscribe to the journal

I'm quite "ancap" and I agree.
Although it doesn't mean all software needs to be opensourced. You are free to not publish the code. Although if someone successfully decompiles it or clones it he should be free to distribute his version (your executables too).
So I believe trade secrets are legit, but not patents and copyright.

Attached: 22089205_127120744676602_4035265679154622622_n.png.jpg (547x402, 16K)

Your idea only makes sense if you're willing to be metaphysical about what you consider energy. Ideas certainly do not come from the investment of physical energy. The best you can do is foster conditions where they might happen

I think this would be best.

true, but if you sign a contract with software distributor that you will not distribute any representation of the source code of the program you've bought and yet you decompile it - you've broken the contract, and the NAP.
patents are not needed if contracts are enforced.

This.
If you want your "intellectual property" to be yours, then don't release it to anyone else.

Gnugpl ftw

> New independent labels thrive with their new platforms. They all seem to work hard even though their work gets stolen all the time.
Oh, the platforms which datamines you up the ass to sell the data so they at least somehow make up for everyone who steals?
You're not allowed to complain about botnet anywhere, because you were the reason it was created.