Forum

[Thasmodious]

Originally Posted by mlund

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 proof is entirely in the pudding, so to speak.

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

Your failure to grasp the point does not constitute dishonesty on my end.

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.

And if they ever want to make a profit from it, they have little choice but to sell it, and their rights, off to some corporation for meager restitution. And just because some rock band sees a lot more money than you do doesn't mean the restitution isn't meager. The important ration isn't how much they make compared to a cashier but how much they make compared to how much the company makes off their work.

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.

I disagree that 'right to property' is a fundamental or necessary right at all.

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.

Refer to my previous comment about your accusations towards my honesty. Just because you are incapable of understanding the ideas you are reading doesn't constitute any fault on my end.

Self distribution or small partnership distribution is a wonderful thing. Its part of the information revolution and something I am fully on board with.

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.

No, that is not what I am proposing at all. But if you really want to argue that point, go argue with constitutional law, which makes (well, originally, until corporations lobbied until they got their way) patents, trademarks, copyrights all things that expire. Because people have a right to seek profit, but society also has a right to enjoy innovation and information and progress from it. It is, after all, the existence of that society that allowed for such innovations or labor to occur at all in the first place.

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.

Keep sticking your gross (or is it willful) misunderstanding of my position here. It's working great for you!

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.

Sad, another mind shackled and subdued by generations of propaganda and manipulation by the Owner Caste.

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

I have a degree in philosophy, does Plato?

No he doesn't. And he has over 2000 years of philosophers and intellectuals trashing his positions and viewpoints on objective morality. Hint: its only true if there is an objectively moral force at work in the universe - ie God. Since that can't be established, neither can an objective morality. Read some Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell and get back to me.

Moral consensus != Moral truth

Kant was also wrong. Important, but wrong. There is a reason why German Idealism is discussed in modern circles in the past tense.