Comments by "JBird" (@jbird4478) on "Kim Dotcom is in mega big trouble" video.

Also South Park: signs an exclusive right to stream contract with HBO for $500 million and sends DMCA takedown notices to any channel uploading an episode.
16
Yes, you can prove that. Not on an individual level, but with statistics.
2
@ryuunosuk3 It seems more like you are the one inventing your own law system theory. Ideas and the fruits of intellectual labor can certainly be owned. This is true in every nation in the world, and a concept that the vast majority of people agree on. Socrates infamously chose to live in poverty. Newton was a well respected professor who could and did rightfully claim fees for his publications. Ownership, whether material or not, is always enforced by force. The only reason you "own" anything is because the law says so. Ownership is not some law of nature. It is a societal construct.
2
@benshulz4179 Subscription for hardware is predatory. I just saw an ad for a subscription for a washing machine for $20 a month or so. The only people who fall for that are people who can't afford the lump sum of a washing machine. For that money you could buy a new one every 2 years, while they can easily last 15 years. It's like a loan with an astronomical interest rate.
1
@ryuunosuk3 You haven't demonstrated a single thing. You just spewed a bunch of rhetoric. Just like with that indie dev in your example, just because in your theory people can't own ideas, doesn't make it so. Yes, you act to keep your property, and so do the owners of copyright. Both of those things are backed by having the legal system on your side. If nobody were to acknowledge that you own things, you wouldn't own anything, and your attempt to claim ownership would prove to be futile quite rapidly.
1
@ryuunosuk3 You seem to conflict what is and what you think should be. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, intellectual ownership exists. The positivist law is the legal system we have and have had for centuries. It is not a "false idol". It is the practical reality. Natural law on the other hand is some vague theoretical attempt at deriving a universal morality from nothing. Even if you were to follow such theories, Locke himself construed property as derived from labor. According to him, man is naturally the owner of the fruits of his labor; a reasoning that can equally be applied to intellectual labor. Copyright serves a very simple purpose: to make intellectual labor worthwhile. Nobody is going to write books, make movies or do any form of substantial intellectual labor without being compensated for it. The very fact we can have this discussion this way is because millions of dollars have been spent on developing the technology to do so; money that has been invested on the premise that it can be monetized by ownership of technology.
1
@ryuunosuk3 That's great for you, but you run your games on processors that have cost millions upon millions to develop; money that pays back because the designs are patented and/or copyrighted. Those are built by machines that cost hundreds of millions a piece, developed by dozens of paid scientists over decades. Modern society builds tremendously on the concept intellectual property. Copyright was invented shortly after the printing press. Before that it wasn't possible to mass produce copies of books, so it wasn't an issue. You really can't compare ancient times when it comes to this. Plato was an aristocrat, and as such his studies were taken care of. In later centuries many great thinkers worked for the catholic church, which had their own way of obtaining money and its own interests in sponsoring philosophers and scientists. There's also no reason to bring wildly outlandish laws in this discussion. I don't blindly defend things simply because they are law. Laws about intellectual property exist for perfectly good reasons and do not harm anyone unreasonably.
1