Comments by "E" (@user-wl2xl5hm7k) on "Why the Internet Hasn't Fixed Democracy" video.

To my knowledge, the reason the internet hasn’t fixed democracy is basically only due to intellectual property laws. Copyright monopolizes all code & websites (in addition to all text, video, audio, photos, & images). And patents (strangely) have been permitted to monopolize certain aspects of software functioning. Patents also monopolize important aspects of internet physical infrastructure.
19
@shawnruby7011 Intellectual property laws are not private property laws. They’re monopoly laws that monopolize everyone else’s use of matter. Without them, there wouldn’t be this drama and these free speech issues. I encourage you to research this issue. Try to understand how copyright and patent laws affect digital technologies, the internet, and physical infrastructure for both.
7
The 2008 economics book ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ and the 2001 essay ‘Against Intellectual Property’ are both as important as Marx’s ‘Capital’! Each has nearly flawless argumentation. All leftists need to read both (free online). If you can’t read them now, then write down both titles so you can tell others so they can read them.
6
@molseren After IP abolition, money will be given directly to creators & inventors before production, rather than at distribution. Additionally, crowdfunding will be tons more popular after IP abolition. And it’s already useful for artists now. People will use crowdfunding both before & after release of art or an invention. Also, people or companies who want art from an artist can (commission) pay that artist an hourly or contracted rate to make that work of art. (Lots of businesses & rich people will pay for this for art, inventions, software, hardware, etc.) There just won’t be an IP monopoly on that work after it’s done. It’s free for humanity to use! It’s likely that individual artists & inventors will be paid higher prices & more frequently after IP abolition.
4
@Kevin Jackson I see your concerns. So IP abolition would actually fix those issues to my knowledge. With IP now, there are NO competitor websites because they’re monopolized by copyright. This includes both competitors for profit and for no profit. Marketing/advertising would be substantially diminished in a world without IP. Marketing mainly works now because ads are bundled with licenses to copyright-monopolies. No one is going to want to watch commercials in their own homes, they can just use the clone website or clone channel and watch the non-commercial version. Making cloned versions of websites, videos, audio recordings, texts, & pictures with all the ads removed is the first thing people will do when IP is abolished. So the spread of word about art, books, etc. (& also products & services) will be judged based on quality rather than advertising. It’s a beautiful thing.
4
@shawnruby7011 I’m not part of any problem. Most of what you said here does not reasonably address my arguments. It’s clear to me that you want to engage in eristic argumentation with me. I don’t- I prefer to only do dialectical method argumentation. I don’t have a desire to bully others in argument so that I “win” & they “lose”. You & everyone here needs to look up the difference between eristic & dialectical method on wikipedia, it takes 2 minutes. Don’t waste your life away doing eristic when you can do actual argumentation & learn the best knowledge with others. Dialectical method argumentation is collaborative reasoning
4
@molseren For more info on pay for artists before production instead of after distribution, Uniquenameosaurus has two excellent and entertaining videos from April 2021 about IP abolition. Patricia Taxxon has another excellent one from October 2017 about copyright abolition.
4
@molseren To address the monetization issue with IP abolition, I fully understand that people need to be paid, just remember that even an IP monopolized product today still has to sell for the author/inventor to get paid. If no one knows about your book, then you won’t sell any “copies” (licenses). Interestingly, IP abolition itself takes care of these issues better so that authors/artists/inventors/programmers/etc. will likely be paid more after IP abolition!
4
@molseren Thanks for your take. I strongly recommend the 2 texts in my 1st reply at the top. They’re the 2 best texts humanity has on IP at the time. And as for content creators, you can still strongly advocate for IP abolition, but use it to monetize things. The whole idea of IP abolition is that you’re for it if it applies to everyone. It’s like everyone agreeing to get rid of all their nukes at the same time
4
@OjoRojo40 Clever last comment and informative. IP provides for censorship. IP is the main component of cultural control, propaganda, & advertising. Copyright does not just monopolize art- copyright also monopolizes all text, video, audio, photos, images, software & websites. And patents monopolize important aspects of media infrastructure. Therefore, IP is the main component which allows media conglomerates to “manufacture consent”.
4
@shawnruby7011 We need to educate all leftists about this essential point: IP is not property in any sense. 99% of the leftists I’ve come across don’t yet understand this. Broadly, intellectual ‘property’ are government granted monopolies that ban everyone else from using their own property, and matter in general, in particular ways. So IP is clearly not property or even capital. IP is monopoly over everyone else’s own property. So IP is way worse than property, commodities, capital or any means of production: IP is anti-property.
3
@Kevin Jackson So IP abolition will help new artists/authors & inventors at the expense of the wealthy & powerful. Authors/artists & inventors will become popular through word of mouth about quality of the work, instead of the marketing which we’re bombarded with today (including on so-called ‘news’ channels or websites)
3
@shawnruby7011 I’m not sure what your argument is. How does that relate to intellectual property (& why it should be abolished)?
3
@molseren Great! I also want to clarify the difference between plagiarism and IP infringement. It’s very important to understand that IP infringement is separate than plagiarism. For plagiarism, there is an ethical obligation to fully credit authors of works specifically for all the work they do. If someone violates this by miscrediting an author/artist/inventor, they usually are and should be chastised for it. It’s ethics, not law. An ethics that I severely support. In fact, the way IP works to benefit publishers actually gets in the way of proper artist crediting oftentimes. Think of Frank Sinatra’s music. So he is credited as the single artist for all his albums but he’s just the vocalist. He never composed the music (maybe he did one or two songs?), he used various composers. And there are all the instrumentalists (violins, trumpets, etc.) who are not being credited when you say it’s Frank Sinatra’s album. And what about all the post production artists (mixer and engineers)? It’s the publisher who owns the copyright-monopolies in the music recordings who chooses to miscredit all the artists (so they can more easily extort money with those copyright-monopolies): Frank Sinatra is the handsome & friendly face the publisher attaches to the copyright-monopolies in the recordings in order to leverage more profits. Because of IP, this type of artistic miscrediting also currently occurs in most artistic mediums as well as for inventions: cinema & shows, music, video games, software, hardware, pharmaceutical drugs, etc..
3
@Kevin Jackson The outrage selecting algorithm facebook has would be public and free to use for all competitors. So Facebook would have nothing to distinguish itself, it’s at the same level as everyone else. And there would be an exact clone with 0 ads. So yes, ads would be completely removed for that site. And more people would go to it.
3
@Kevin Jackson No government force needed. IP is the only thing that props up big tech.
3
@molseren Thanks, glad you appreciate the info. And yes, I agree that the free culture movement has dissipated recently. I actually think most of that is because it doesn’t fully grapple with how IP laws need to be abolished. So I think that the IP abolition movement will have the logical fortitude to withstand opposition until full abolition when the movement starts to pick up speed.
3
@molseren Full IP abolition is the best praxis now for the working class. And it should be the first cause for leftists to obtain. The reason other leftist aims aren’t succeeding now (medicare for all, housing for all, free education, etc.) is because, more than any other tool, IP solidifies the politico-economic power of the most powerful and rich of the capitalist class. IP has such an incredibly horrible effect on the economy & culture that most people haven’t realized yet…
3
@molseren This is why full IP abolition now is the BEST praxis for leftists: IP abolition can happen very soon. IP laws are so illogical that most left AND right ideologies directly oppose them. Therefore a broad left-right coalition to abolish IP quickly will override any opposition by the media, lobbyists, & politicians. Think of the incredibly important implications of this for leftist praxis… Logic completely opposes IP. The people who don’t understand this are still submerged in the corporate IP propaganda that has been peddled for a century. Just need to educate them out of it
3
@Kevin Jackson As far as I know, the reason those websites are exploitative like that are because of advertising in the first place. Ads mean that upping total views are the aim. Without ads, view total is not the aim. The quality of the content would instead be the aim. So clone sites could incorporate an algorithm which doesn’t consider view total at all in what it shows you. People will be resilient in developing different algorithms to address issues when they arise. But now, with IP, those algorithms are not only secret, they’re monopolized so no one else can use the code, even if its not for profit
3
@elietheprof5678 Hey Elie. I think it’s mainly the algorithms. Circumstances are what affect culture. And I want to do all I can to make those circumstances less burdensome.
3
@laurentjuan2479 Well to my knowledge, it’s IP laws that are the main reason why the internet is like this. So I actually clarified above that IP laws are not really property laws because IP is not property. Seems like you missed it, no worries. IP laws are monopoly laws, and it wouldn’t be a stretch to call them anti-property
3
@OjoRojo40 So true Ojo, good to see your comments again btw
2
@shawnruby7011 In fact they would fix those issues and tons more for the working class. You shouldn’t be making public conclusions here if you don’t know how IP laws work. You lost my trust in discussing this with you. I’m not interested in talking to you anymore, but feel free to keep your responses coming! The more replies in these IP abolition threads the more they get noticed. Lets get that reply count up!
2
@Kevin Jackson I see your concerns, but I believe they will be addressed with IP abolition. As for Netflix, they use algorithms to give you a more quality experience so you purchase the subscription in the first place. But that type of subscription would actually be free in a post IP world because all the videos and code can be freely copied by anyone. It seems you’re done discussing this at this point, which I respect. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion. I strongly recommend you copy/save my 1st reply at the top btw, in case you decide you want to read them.
2
@shawnruby7011 What else? Feel free to reply as much as you want
1
@shawnruby7011 I already said I’m not interested in talking to you. What else? Reply as much as you like
1
@laurentjuan2479 I’m confused, could you clarify how that relates to intellectual property laws and their abolition?
1
@tomlxyz That’s not true to my knowledge. Please do more research on this. I have a ploylest of the best videes on the subject on my profile. Good luck.
1