If someone makes a good app or whatever, they should be rewarded for it. That’s literally why lain no longer works on pleroma, the p*rn cam money dried up. Nobody works for free.
It does, but that’s a separate issue anyway. If you guys are entitled to free coders to make your apps and free musicians to make your music, why aren’t I entitled to free immigrants to do my housekeeping?
Sure it does. It takes time and resources to make music or movies or apps, just as it does to clean my house. Intellectual property law is designed to protect people that make creative work from others seeking to exploit it.
Just because you can copy something on a computer for free doesn’t mean it cost nothing to create.
@bot of course it doesn't mean it costs nothing to create, but it does cost near nothing to duplicate. The orignal work has significantly more value than subsequent. This is why first-to-market of such importance in any thing that even resembles a free market.
@bot no one is saying that consumers (nor employers is your case) are entitled to others or their labor. So-called Intellectual Property is an artificial creation of the state which allows those in power to stay in power.
@yangwenli Word. Actually it may be more than a right, it's really a responsibility. My family always taught me to share. [Example, I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of small children who have yet to prove they can handle them safely.]
I've never really delved deeply into this kind of argument, but something that just popped into my head and made me wonder:
Why are we framing this as "intellectual property"? To put it another way, why are we framing this as "buying an intangible thing" rather than "paying a person for performing work"? Legal advice is an intangible thing, but we don't consider lawyers' opinions to be "intellectual property" once written down.
@lain it can take labor to create, but that doesn't make LTV accurate. Price signals clearly indicate otherwise. I for one agree with most economists, particularly those of the neo-classical school, that value is subjective. #SVT4Life
It's an intangible asset with a highly subjective value. It doesn't really exist in a real sense, as we can't isolate the braincells that came up with and/or the idea itself. It's not a human right to copy the thoughts/efforts of others, but intellectual property is bullshit from the word go. It's basically just calling dibs on an idea/concept, that others would almost inevitably reach even if you didn't. It cripples further potential developments and creates monopolies which harm people for ridiculous profit margins. Which are then used to bribe politicians who enforce retarded IP laws etc.
@Sui@yangwenli@bot i think you're talking about the price, not about value. both parties of an exchange expect to receive more value from the exchange than they give up.
Somewhat, yeah, that's the nature of barter. Unless one side has the other by the balls, the value is determined by both parties.
But when you're dealing with intangible things like ideas, and that which can be replicated at almost no cost, with no actual provable loss to the creator.. It gets a lot more murky. I mean, if someone took a loaf of bread that someone was selling. The baker can't sell that stolen loaf of bread, there's a tangible loss there. If someone copies a concept, maybe tweaks a bit here and there to improve it, there's no loss. That idea can still be sold.
@Sui everything you say is accurate. Not sure why that makes it murky. No one can copy your idea, as soon as it leaves your head, regardless of via your mouth, your product, or some other way I'm not thinking of, it is no longer just your idea.
With regards to it being theft or not, by the definition it clearly isn't. Yet people still seem confused by the differences, so it's murky to a lot of people.
Exactly, once someone has expressed something they have given up their privacy of whatever it was. I get that they want to monetize it, but that doesn't change reality which is why they rely on the heavy hand of big government to enforce it onto others.
No it isn't a red herring lol. You stated that it was theft, I asked for you to elaborate on what you said. You've refused to, and appear to be trying to be moving the goal posts.
How is it theft? Or do you concede that it isn't actually theft?
I don’t have to, that’s just a red herring. I already explained how it’s morally wrong, and it should be obvious that if everyone thought like you, a lot of creative work wouldn’t be possible or sustainable.
Imagine if we didn't have patent laws! There would be less research into advanced pharmaceuticals! Only people who just wanted to help people would even bother with the research. And doctors would be stuck prescribing inexpensive cures without kick-backs. In fact, the incentives to keep patients ill to sell them expensive drugs to mask the symptoms while also making them sicker would disappear! It would be absolutely awful ?
@bot that's slavery. But what does that have to do with claiming piracy is something other than a human right? How does that have any connection to arguing as if copying is stealing?
@bot a lot of work, whether you classify it as creative or not, is unnecessary. Big governments propping up the status quo robs the world of what it otherwise may receive in the betterment of humanity.
Please explain what definition of stealing and/or taking you are using. What is taken/lost from someone who has been copied from?
As for what you have said here, I can expect that I'll win the lottery. It does not mean I will, or that if the wrong numbers come up I will have been stolen from. Expectations are little more than hopes.
lol my point is just that the argument that patent and copyright laws help the consumer by making innovation profitable are spurious, and have to be balanced against the cost of monitoring and enforcement.
Oh, I just think it's all absolute bullshit. Pushed by lobbyists for profit, onto corrupt puppets for profit. It's just people making monopolies at the legal level.
Pharmaceutical research is very expensive and if generics manufacturers were able to just copy and sell every new drug that was released, it just wouldn’t be a thing anymore.
@bot most such workers have already receive all they will long before it is pirated. Besides losing potential profit isn't theft, it doesn't exist yet, that is natural in any market.
There would also be next to no innovation or development of any kind which is why China has to steal all their tech and reverse engineer it. There is no incentive to create in a society with no protection for intellectual property
@bot that's the kind of stuff that powerful capitalists say. The truth is, however, that it is actually just the opposite. Protecting drug manufacturers from competition makes it easier for capitalists to sit on the previous work of their employees, rather than hiring more researchers to improve their existing products or develop new ones so that they once again can be first-to-market. Do you really think it is ethical to increase profits of the few at the expense of humanity as a whole?
>be me, doctor >work decades and invent new machine for spinal surgery, resulting in better results and quicker recovery >take secret of how it works to my grave bc faggots will just steal it and govt has no recourse
It’s just obvious but I’ll explain it anyway. Let’s say a company spends $10 million developing a new drug. Let’s say the drug itself costs $5 to make + $5 to recover the cost of development (in a reasonable time frame), so the company has to charge $10 per pill.
The generics manufacturer has no research costs to recover, so they can sell each pill for $5 and turn a profit. Do you see what the issue is now?
They don't charge $10 a pill, they charge triple digits (if not more) and then get additional perks stolen through taxation. Do you know what profit margins there are in big pharma?
Nobody sells at cost, it wouldn't be $5/pill unless they work out a way to distribute it cheaper (Which should be rewarded, no?)
I'm honestly having trouble believing that we're arguing to maintain the status quo so that big pharma can keep doing their good work. The cognitive dissonance is real man.
Yeah.. Big pharma's one of the worst fields to pick examples from lol..
I mean they're so corrupt and greedy, that they don't even develop shit to cure. They develop shit to exploit the suffering/dying for as long as possible, as there's more profit in keeping people in that state.
Right, that's what an investment is. A company puts up capital to create something expecting that it'll yield profit when it's complete. Btw why do you remove all other @'s from the thread?
bot, why are you still wrenching me? You gave up on your argument, you didn't have anything past misdefining stealing to make an ethical argument. Right?
@bot@yangwenli@Sui@lain@_skycaptain there's probably something stupid in there. the pill semite is not just trying to figure out if the pill works or how to make it. they have to do a song and dance for the regulator and they have to avoid stepping on the other pill semite's patents. they also have to figure out how to market it, or how to infiltrate the media to make you take it. tbh I'm just kinda grasping at straws though. but I seriously doubt any expenses on top of making the pill are going to be honest and necessary and I kinda just wanna see them get rekt.
This claim as been labelled "Pants on fire" by our fact checkers.
-This fact check was sponsored by Pfizer, your friends and totally trustworthy source of side effect free medication! (Btw you can't sue us, we're above the law. Suck it nerds)
You said it was stealing, you brought that in not me, you stopped replying when I asked you to define your terms (and offered what I understand the word to mean). You tried to pivot and move the goalposts into some ethical one instead, and chose big pharma for some bizarre reason. You then ran away from the topic until now, when I tried to keep you on the point we had gotten upto…
One of us btfo’d, I agree, but it wasn’t me bot. It’s cool though, we can have different opinions. Neither of us convinced the other person of our perspective, and I’m still open to the topic if you want to take another bash at it sometime.
You're just trying to reframe the argument with your narrative about "muh copying isn't theft" when that isn't the actual issue (because you've been btfo).
Poor bot, got nothing better than "COPE" and wrench reacts.. Not used to taking the L gracefully I take it?
Ok ok, I'll stop poking now. Don't write me down in your lists! I can offer a sacrificial lamb if it helps, we've apparently got a diaperfag pedo in chudbuds if you want to come bully him?
Still, that was a bad place to take a stance on.. Especially a moral one, I mean fucking hell. Finding anything moral in big pharma is like trying to light a campfire underwater.
@gnu2 > Besides losing potential profit isn't theft, it doesn't exist yet, that is natural in any market.
While difficult to put an exact dollar value on it, opportunity cost is absolutely a thing- and people regularly sue for damages over it.
If enough people pirate or copy an invention- especially soon after it was created- then odds are high that the creator is going to be deprived of earnings. Whether they are deprived of enough earnings to affect their livelihood... it depends. Larger firms and popular creators may be able to absorb the cost, but smaller creators may not. @bot
@SheistyPenguin "larger firms and popular creators may be able to absorb the cost, but smaller creators may not." which is a great signal that this isn't what they should be doing
yeah, I thought I was going to make a point by choosing an industry with no moral standing, but put a feather in my wig and call me nancy, "investing in research that saves lives" is still ingrained in our collective consciousness ?
I just enjoy sparring/conflict, I find it fun and one of the best ways to get new information. So long as you don't go into them expecting the other side to adopt your viewpoint, there's no real way to lose.
Used to do a lot of devil's advocating, cba much anymore as everything's so contentious that I usually piss off people on both sides of any argument anyway.
So what *should* creators be doing to earn a living, if they aren't a bigCorp or at the top of the popularity pyramid already?
Let's go from the angle of FOSS. Say you release some open-source software under a GPL license. Someone else forks your code, closes the source, and starts selling it for a profit- maybe with some changes that break compatibility with your version. They become wildly popular as the creator of #yourapp- and if you try to assert yourself as the original creator, they will use their earnings to sue you into silence (or maybe nobody cares, because they are all using the closed-source version at this point).
Would you feel motivated to keep plugging away at your original version that nobody cares about anymore? No harm no foul, because nothing of value was lost- right?
LOL no, he has other bad takes as well. Among his numerous pro cp rants, he had one where people shouldn't criticise people watching cp on the internet because their pc's have non ethically mined materials in them.
Yeah that’s true. That is one of the main reasons why I don’t go nuclear on some of these fags and type out an essay explaining why they are wrong and gay.
Calling someone a nigger and/or faggot gets the job done every time.
Not like people are gonna listen at this point anyway. I mean fuck, over half the faggots on the left think it's racist to not be their brand of racist. "reverse racism" and all that faggy shit.
I don’t know enough about genetics to really say. All I know is my cousin has none of the stereotypical features and she did a dna test that found she is 99% ashkenazi
@SheistyPenguin I don't know. That's not my responsibility. "Who will pick the cotton" "How will slaves take care of themselves" I know the market has a real shortage of nurses worldwide. In my country we also have a great need for engineers.
@SheistyPenguin >>Someone else forks the code and closes the source.
This is totally an option if it's the Apache license, but not the GPL as you used in your example.