Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Dematerialisation" video.

@peka__ Copyright is inherently anti-capitalist. The justification for all capitalist ideology is that the entity that can produce the most for the best price has all the right to the profits. Copyright is a Big Government obstruction of industry that is designed to prosecute those who could produce and sell something cheaper by illegitimarely and arbitrarily enforcing some kind of exclusive sales rights for an inventor.
3
 @rafaelflores448 You can't legally buy a slave because slaves are not property to begin with.
3
Smartphones and computers did create a significant loss for humanity though. Mainly penmanship. Some studies suggest that we lose a hefty bit of both fine motor skills and intelligence when we're not practicing writing with a pen in our daily life. It's most pronounced in children who attend schools where handwritten exercises have been completely replaced by issuing the students with tablets.
2
 @emperorarasaka You can't steal a digital license. Nothing digital can ever be property.
2
 @GreyWolfLeaderTW But counterfeiting is a victimless crime, so long as you're not trying to sell a counterfeit while passing it off as an original.
2
 larsliamvilhelm But the whole premise of why copyright infringement is deemed criminal is a weak argument that it's supposedly theft.
2
@phukyerpheefees Wrong. There is legislation in several countries that say I can make how many back-up copies of media that I've bought as I feel like. So I am not limited to only view a single copy I bought. I can legally make millions of copies of it if I want. And there's not a damn thing the companies can do about it. Nor should they have any right to.
2
@rafaelflores448 The act of buying implies transaction of property unless it is a service, dude
2
@peka__ If intellectual property is recognized in a capitalist society it stops being capitslist. Like I said: the justification for capitalism hinges on the idea that prices get cheaper in free market economies, and that's why people should accept the capitalist model, even though it's unfair as hell and favor the very wealthiest practically all of the time, at the expense of the poor. The argument is that the reduced prices on goods and services "outweigh" these injustices and serve the interests of the majority population than resorting to government overreach and micromanage the economy to remove freedoms to operate from capitalist enterprise. Copyright laws completely violate this argument and negates any pretentions of capitalism entirely, since their only purpose is to artificially prop up prices on certain goods to an inventors liking by simply forbidding any competitors from coming up with ways to supply the market with the same goods cheaper than the inventor can/want. So if you support copyright laws, you are far more afflicted by marxist thoughts than anyone who oppose. If inventors or corporations want to ensure that only they can profit from a product then it is ENTIRELY their own responsibility to jealously guard their trade secrets and make it hard for any competitor to copy their blueprints. It shouldn't be up to me as a taxpayer to pay for their "exclusive rights" to their money makers. Especially not when these people are the ones complaining about paying taxes more than anyone and are always trying to skip paying taxes through various off-shore account schemes. They can pay for their own damn corporate security. That's what "freeeeeedom" is all about.
2
@peka__ No i'm not using it interchangeably with anarchism. That's your confusion, not mine. I'm not saying that capitalism is completely devoid of law or limits What i'm saying is that SOME laws and limits are inherently anti-capitalist by nature. Like copyright laws. Other laws are more in line with capitalist principles and values. Get it?
1
@peka__ Intellectual property isn't property since it contains no physical properties. If you can't weigh and measure it physically, then it has no business being regarded as property. It also can't be "stolen". Since theft requires PHYSICAL removal of physical objects. Like I said: if you want to guard trade secrets then that's your responsibility alone. You can use encryptions or refuse to share the secrets with anyone if you want them to be exclusive and also keeping the profits from them exclusive. I see no reason why the rest of us taxpayers should sacrifice our taxmoney to safeguard you from compulsive blabbering about your trade secrets. As capitalist consumers all we care about are cheap consumer goods. Not your "dreams" as an inventor.
1
@peka__ And I argue that enforcing copyright laws are totalitarian and an overreach. Let's put it this way: there are several inventions throughout history that have been developed in completely separate parts of the world with no interaction between either inventor. So when it is discovered that they both came up with the same design, who should get who prosecuted? The inventor that first made it to the patent office with his invention, even though inventor number 2 most likely worked just as hard and spent as much creativity as inventor number 1 did. Being the first to file a patent is an extremely arbitrary decider for who should get exclusive rights to produce something. Then there's the fact that this whole "intellectual property" nonsense has even been allowed to extend to our biology itself. For example, did you know that the genes in your own body do not legally belong to you to do with as you see fit anymore? Biomedical companies have somehow legalesed their way into exclusive rights to use therapy and manipulation of certain genes in the human body. That means my genes and YOUR genes as well. Copyright has unironically been allowed to enslave every human on earth in this manner, in the sense that parts of our own bodies are no longer our own sovreign property anymore. And with this in mind it's extremely easy to see that copyright has got to go. It fulfills no beneficial purpose whatsoever for the market or our society.
1
@someman8772 What game has been physically removed from it's rightful owner through piracy? If you have a game and I have a copy of that game, you still have your game. Nothing has been stolen. Theft requires a physical removal of something.
1