Another way to look at it is the people at Google are all now quasi-retired with kids and wouldn't be so mad if some scrappy startups ate their business lunches (while they are at home with their fams). Perhaps they are just subsidizing research.
> Does your statement become "Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words"?
Yes. Your lungs is a tree that needs healthy air. Your brain is a tree that needs healthy ideas. When people are not free to clean the ideawaves, they fill with pollution, and that is where we find ourselves.
Yes. Our government should not be in the business of regulating the distribution of a sequence of words about imaginary wizards.
JK is a talented and hard working writer, and though I'm not a fan personally of those books I respect that they likely are great pieces of work, but I believe we are getting the scraps of what we could get in the Intellectually Oppressed world compared to an Intellectually free world. I'd rather have a world without cancer, a world with 100x more people able to provide medical care, a world with less pollution, than a world of artificial scarcity where a few who go along with a system of oppression get to be billionaires.
If we abolish copyright then there is no need for GPL. I am so forever grateful for GPL, as Stallman and the like weaponized copyright against itself, and then gave us crystal clear data that open source software is strictly superior in the long run.
But even if only 1% of ideas were copyrighted, that is still a tax on the use of all ideas. In a world without copyright, I can download any dataset at will and analyze and remix it to my heart's content, and share my findings. But in a world with copyright, if there was one "copyrighted" land mine in there I open myself up to financial ruin. So one must tread carefully when working with any external ideas.
We know that there was a written intent that it was "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". However, who knows whether or not that was the true intent of all those who signed off on it. We see that lots of written intent, (Exhibit A: Purdue's "Partners Against Pain" Oxycontin promotion), may not match the mathematical reality on the ground. Also, we know that there was plenty of places in the Constitution that were good to amend (the three fifths clause, for instance).
This site (http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/index.php) has lots of fascinating old docs where you can come up with your own impressions about the early days of copyright. My general impression was that while it didn't ever actually promote the progress of science and useful arts, it absolutely did in the early days serve as a super smart free hack for the new federal government to build a central intelligence and library of all the latest and greatest inventions from throughout the land.
> What does that even mean?
It means that if you analyze it using logic and put all assumptions on the table (start high up on the tree), you deduce that this is a system of intellectual slavery, not of intellectual "property". You deduce that if there is such a thing as stealing ideas, then all ideas with any value are majority stolen and but a fraction novel.
> Above a certain level of creativity people do produce novel or exceptional things that are worthy of protection.
Name your very best example that will prove me wrong. It should be so simple. One example, that's all it takes. Take your time, make sure you've got a good one. I'll tell you that not once, not a single time in over 17 years, have I ever seen a single example of this argument hold up under scrutiny.
Oh wait, you already did:
> Because naked men are a shared concept Michelangelo's David is not protect-worthy?
Ah yes, Michelangelo's David. A work free of copyright built under commission! Thank you for again pointing out the futility of the defense of copyright.
Yes. Though I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so the delivery may be less than ideal.
Copyright gives PersonA legal control over a subset of PersonB's behavior, even when PersonA is not involved. This is hard to defend, unless you are fine with people being property. Slavery gives PersonA legal control over PersonB's behavior. Under Slavery, PersonB has one master with lots of control. Under Copyright, PersonB has lots of masters with small controls.
Is there a way to believe that ideas can be property without it being a system of slavery? There's no logical way to make that work. Think about the moment that copyright "expires". At that instant, does matter disappear? Did property vanish? What changed? The only thing that changed was each person suddenly gained a little more freedom—the ability to share a new sequence that they couldn't share before. The property rights that the copyright holder had over other people went away. People became more free.
Anyone who thinks for themselves should be able to quickly deduce that these laws are shades of slavery laws, and not about property rights. I figured that out before I could legally drink. It's not that complicated. The question is why are so many duped? I think it's probably a question of priorities (I would say Freedom of Speech and the Press are more fundamental, and then Freedom to Remix and Distribute would be next) or perhaps it's because before the Internet there wasn't enough uncontrolled bandwidth for the truth to get out, or perhaps it's that the people are bombarded over and over again by the big lie from the moment of childhood—look at the FBI Warnings at the beginning of Disney Movies, or the dozens of times per day that you see the phrase "All rights reserved".
This. You realize it doesn’t make any sense. All ideas are shared creations, by definition. If you’ve created something that has meaning for other people, the meaning comes from the ideas you are incorporating into your own tree.
There is no defending copyright. It is indefensible from first principles. It makes no logical sense.
You can spin your wheels all you want but going from simple first principles it is fundamentally flawed. If you believe ideas can be property, then you believe people can be property.
meet.hn/city/us-Honolulu
Socials: - x.com/breckyunits - github.com/breck7 - reddit.com/user/breck - linkedin.com/in/breck7
---
56kl4S6O2VDkN55sunwx88edWSRbuCwn