The only theory of Property that allows something like IP to exist is one based on labor value. It doesn't "reach the same problem as communism" intellectual property IS communist legal theory. "My effort and labor should be rewarded" fuck off.
Property isn't about getting people to work. So frankly I don't give a single fucking shit if people "cant make a living" off using men with guns to force you to pretend you don't know something.
For Property to exist it must have Scarcity and Exclusivity. Intellectual property has neither.
Intellectual Property is about the stupidest legal doctrine after central banking.
Let's say I spend a bunch of time writing anything. A story, a history, a song, a news article, a scientific text, whatever. Hours and hours of research writing and such. When I spend my time on this, I don't have the use of that time to do a different job, so when I finish my product, I put it behind some sort of paywall because I need to make money somehow.
Now, I'm not saying "I did a thing for hours, people owe me money." If what I made is crap, it doesn't matter how long I spent doing it, no one will want to buy it. But, if some moron says "hey, this is great, everyone should have it for free!" and then circumvents my paywall, and I can't make any money off of it... it doesn't matter how nice and high-minded you tell yourself you're being, the bottom line is that I no longer have the ability to trade my time for something other than working a job that isn't creating that thing, so I'm not going to keep making it. Because it's true that no one is obligated to think my labor is worth paying for, but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to.
You are conflating two different things in a way that doesn't work. All I'm saying is that if no one pays for everything you're writing off as some ephemeral bullshit, people will stop making that stuff.
I love that your counterargument to "I don't fucking care if you can't make a living as an author" is to explain why you can't make a living as an author, and to fail at it anyway.
So I'll repeat.
I don't fucking care. Laws written "so that creative people can get paid for writing books" aren't legitimate legal theory.
I love this part:
"but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to." So fucking don't you retard.
I'm not bitching about personal problems. That's not a personal issue for me. The "I" was hypothetical, not literal. I'm warning you about the consequences of your policies. You're just a moron who doesn't understand incentives.
Wow what a fucking stupid response.
The only theory of Property that allows something like IP to exist is one based on labor value. It doesn't "reach the same problem as communism" intellectual property IS communist legal theory. "My effort and labor should be rewarded" fuck off.
Property isn't about getting people to work. So frankly I don't give a single fucking shit if people "cant make a living" off using men with guns to force you to pretend you don't know something.
For Property to exist it must have Scarcity and Exclusivity. Intellectual property has neither.
Intellectual Property is about the stupidest legal doctrine after central banking.
Let's say I spend a bunch of time writing anything. A story, a history, a song, a news article, a scientific text, whatever. Hours and hours of research writing and such. When I spend my time on this, I don't have the use of that time to do a different job, so when I finish my product, I put it behind some sort of paywall because I need to make money somehow.
Now, I'm not saying "I did a thing for hours, people owe me money." If what I made is crap, it doesn't matter how long I spent doing it, no one will want to buy it. But, if some moron says "hey, this is great, everyone should have it for free!" and then circumvents my paywall, and I can't make any money off of it... it doesn't matter how nice and high-minded you tell yourself you're being, the bottom line is that I no longer have the ability to trade my time for something other than working a job that isn't creating that thing, so I'm not going to keep making it. Because it's true that no one is obligated to think my labor is worth paying for, but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to.
You are conflating two different things in a way that doesn't work. All I'm saying is that if no one pays for everything you're writing off as some ephemeral bullshit, people will stop making that stuff.
I love that your counterargument to "I don't fucking care if you can't make a living as an author" is to explain why you can't make a living as an author, and to fail at it anyway.
So I'll repeat.
I don't fucking care. Laws written "so that creative people can get paid for writing books" aren't legitimate legal theory.
I love this part: "but it is also true that I am not obligated to perform labor no one pays for—and that, in many cases, even if I want to, I cannot afford to." So fucking don't you retard.
I'm not bitching about personal problems. That's not a personal issue for me. The "I" was hypothetical, not literal. I'm warning you about the consequences of your policies. You're just a moron who doesn't understand incentives.
You're borderline illiterate at this point. The "you" matches your hypothetical. It's called Subject verb agreement.
Even if I did mean "you personally" your response wouldn't be relevant, because again, I'm not arguing that they would or would not be encouraged.
I'm saying I don't care.
Again.
God you're stupid.