Aardvaarkman said:
Right. But that would be because of the suppression of speech, not communication. It's kind of weird that you use the term "free communications" because the Constitution says "Freedom of Speech" - not communications.
Which also commonly gets identified as the "freedom of expression", to emphasize that it is about controlling all means of expressing opinions, not just about the standard definition of "speech", that is vocalized face-to-face interactions, but also about writings, films, dance, clapping, or video game development.
Communication seems to be an interchargible alternative term for that, but in case you are about to find some clever counterexample anyways, just replace the word with "expression" in my earlier posts, just replace it with "expression" in my earlier post, because they certainly ARE interchargible in the specific cases we are talking about, expressing public artistic content either digitally or analoguely.
Aardvaarkman said:
So, what makes the ownership of intellectual property less legitimate? There are also no simple ways to solve that issue, so why would you treat it differently?
Because property is largely seen as virtous in and of itself, while copyright has been, until very recently, a means of securing benefits for society.
If the government would start talking about taking away mines from corporations, or cars from their owners, they would have to go full communist, upsetting people's universally established expectation to owning property.
If they would want to decrease copyright length from 95 years to 40 years, that many would still see as merely shortening the granting of an entitlement to a more practical scope, and only the WIPO/RIAA/MPAA style organizations, and people like you, would present it instead as an act of taking away stuff from it's owners.
Aardvaarkman said:
Entitled said:
For copyright, there is still hope, because even if the more reasonable parts of it have existed for centuries as government-granted monopolies, it's treatment as "intellectual property" is a relatively recent sleight of hand by lobbyist groups trying to present it in a way that gives legitimacy to it's mindless extensions.
That's incorrect. Copyright law was introduced to address issues facing the arts and creative works due to the development of technology that allows mechanical reproduction. It was not created because of lobbyist groups, even though many lobbyists have abused it in the meantime.
What are you disgreeing with here?
"Copyright law was introduced to address issues facing the arts and creative works due to the development of technology that allows mechanical reproduction." - That's true, and like I said, it was addressed by granting publishers certain government-granted monopolies"
"It was not created because of lobbyist groups, even though many lobbyists have abused it in the meantime." - Yeah, that's what I just said, that RECENTLY lobbyists have started abusing it by treating it as intellectual property.
Although as a matter of fact, I would also debate that statement that it was not created because of lobbyist groups. Depending on how you define them, may I introduce you to the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers, essentially a printers' guild, who received the world's first copyright as a Royal Letter Patent, an exclusive right to publish any books in England?
Aardvaarkman said:
Entitled said:
You have been helping them and contributing to their arguments, by continuing to argue that it is property, instead of these things.
So, stating the truth is wrong, because you disagree with it? This really isn't making sense.
You, just as the lobbyists, are yet to demonstrate any example of how it IS property, beyond wordplay and irrelevant appeals to amounts of harm caused.
Aardvaarkman said:
It's not an exaggeration - it's a fact that copyright holders own the rights to their copyrighted material. In what way is it false?
There is a world of difference between "owning the rights" of something, and that thing actually being property, "a thing that you own".
If a police officer owns an arrest warrant, that doesn't mean that they have "arresting property".
If a government owns the right to define marriage, that doesn't mean they have "marriage definition property".
If you own the right to drive a car, that doesn't mean that you own a car.
A game developer might be "owning the rights", in a manner of speaking, to control access to their game. But they could own some such rights, no matter how copyright is defined. If copyright would only extend to 14 years, a wide Fair Use permitting all derivative works, and legal non-commercial file-sharing, then copyright holders would still continue to "own the rights" granted to them in the remaining regulations.
The problem begins when they start to equalating "owning the copyright", with "owning the intellectual property", a.k.a. "owning the game", and claim that holding copyright regulations must come with every concievable aspect of control, because it is "their property", "their game".
Aardvaarkman said:
No they are not. They are the opposite - they are integral to them. You can't make a car without mining. You can't operate a car without feeding it oil or other forms of energy.
This is not circumstantial in any way, unless you've somehow discovered a source of free energy and resources.
It's circumstancial to whether they are someone's legal property. If the government would nationalize all cars, their usage would still consume energy. Their legal status is irrelevant to the fact of their existence, unlike with copyright, that exists by the virtue of being legally defined.
Aardvaarkman said:
No, you are not. Copyright law doesn't stop anybody from writing anything down, even if they copy a whole book. Can you give any example of anybody's freedom of speech being limited by Copyright Law? People are still able to say whatever they like.
Well, there was that thing with the youtube LPs, obviously, but other than that, basically every example of derivative works getting C&D letters. And that isn't even getting into the issue of direct copies.
Aardvaarkman said:
Entitled said:
Maybe necessarily, maybe not, but the point stands that unlike property, copyright is harmful by default, and should be able to justify itself by greater pragmatism (such as making an industry viable).
Says who? What is so necessarily virtuous about industry that it a reason to support something? Industries are often very harmful - just look at what the oil industry has done, or what the child sex industry has done. How are they more important than creative industries that rely on intellectual property laws to be viable?
You misunderstood me here, I was talking about the justification of COPYRIGHT, in making the creative industry viable.
(As opposed to actual property that is expected to exist whether or not it's helping any industry).
Aardvaarkman said:
Yes it is.
Aardvaarkman said:
Right - just as mining companies and the ownership of land was only granted in the first place by governments granting those privileges - usually as a result of winning a war or conquering indigenous peoples. How is copyright any different?
Because if that property wouldn't be legally secured, someone would control the mines and the sweatshops anyways, and over a long term, that control would still get codified as property.
For physical objects, it is in their nature to be possessed by someone.
In contrast, information is perfectly capable of being freely shared and copied in society, as it has been demonstrated by thousands of years of copyright-free systems.
Aardvaarkman said:
All forms of property are essential government granted (or prior to democratic governments, granted by the aristocracy or monarchies).
There is a difference between negative and positive rights.
Property is a negative right, it mostly consists of governments acknowledging possession or control that individuals have gathered anyways, and secure it with laws and policing.
Copyright is a positive right, it's subject, the copying authority, exists by the virtue of being invented by the government, and
Finishing property would require the government to actively take away and redistribute all property among the public, and keep stopping them from gathering popssessions.
Meanwhile, finishing copyright would happen simply by stopping to actively censor the public's tools of communication, and letting information be freely shared in it's default state.
That's the reason why most historical governments could barely take away their citizens property even with lots of bloodshed, while all "intellectual property" got "redistributed" without them lifting a finger.