Forum

[mlund]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust. They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors.

That's an interesting opinion that some people might share with you, but it lacks any sort of substantiation. The use of "enslave" here is amusing hyperbole that might score points in some circles, but it does you a disservice in the view of a skeptic. You're entitled to your opinions, but your claims about facts need support that you just aren't providing.

The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it.

That's an out-and-out lie that shows complete ignorance of the subject of copyrights and property rights.

Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is their property they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties.

If you invalidate their right to exchange their exclusive rights to some other desired good, service, or currency you've deprived them of their right to property and damaged the value of that property by making it less liquid.

The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network.

That's another outright lie. Sometimes it is profitable to choose to do so. Sometimes it is not. Some of us hire a printing vendor and develop our own distribution network or utilize an existing network for a fee.

Diamond Comics, for example, has the best distribution network in the business. They don't own the I.P.'s that they distribute. Comic printers don't either.

Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.

No. THAT paradigm is actually far more comparable to slavery than your earlier, misguided claims. What you are proposing is that a man's work be taken from him without compensation because you feel entitled to it.

At least the "evil distribution companies" have to pay a man for his work and a man is free to elect to not do business with them. You simply want to take his labor from him whenever you please. You are the slaver here.

It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create.

The only people that actually deprive a creator of their properties are those who appropriate those properties without the creator's consent. When the creator sells or contracts his rights to a property he's given consent. When a creator watches his works being pinched by a bunch of bums under the guise of "socialism" or "freedom of information," he's being robbed.

Of course they are. They can't be any other way. Subjectivity means that something is relative to the way it is perceived. Objective means that something is what something is, without the filer of perception. Morality is entirely an invention of humanity and cannot be viewed outside of that context.

I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.

Consensus on morality within a given society, however, probably has to be subjective by the very nature of human society and consensus.

Moral consensus != Moral truth

- Marty Lund