In a free market economy, are copyrights, trademarks and patents good?

[Anonymous No.56843569]

Alright schizos this is the best board I can think of to ask this
PROS:
>people who make shit are compensated for their work
>original ideas are encouraged as you can't just reuse old shit
CONS:
>people can't remix and remake existing shit in interesting and creative ways
>heavily abused even when it would classify as fair use
>kid diddler hollywood and shit will still give you the same shit over and over because they own it

[Anonymous No.56843589]

Read stephan Kinsella

Intellectual property isn't real property and causes massive levels of economic destruction

[Anonymous No.56843592]

>>56843569
the last time republicans had a real candidate. He could've beat biden

[Anonymous No.56843614]

>>56843569
>free market economy...

[Anonymous No.56843625]

>>56843589
This. IP is some mercantilist corporatist nonsense that conflicts with real property rights. People only think IP is some normal necessary thing for a free prosperous economy, because it has been a thing their entire lives and they don't have the level of abstract thought necessary enough to see how things could be different and better.

[Anonymous No.56843643]

>>56843589
based

[Anonymous No.56844403]

>>56843589
>>56843625
>>56843643
these anons are right
intellectual property rights aren’t real rights, because intellectual property isn’t really property, because it isn’t scarce.

[Anonymous No.56844463]

>>56844403
property's relationship with scarcity isn't so simple.

perhaps the question could be restructured,
not is intellectual property good or bad, per se, but rather, how to enact and enforce intellectual property rights maintaining as much and many of the pro's as possible while removing or reducing as much and as many of the cons as possible.

[Anonymous No.56844506]

lowkey sad that we can't have free windows distros

[Anonymous No.56844518]

>>56843569
Patents are fine the way they are currently set up.
Copyrights have been given way too much protection because companies like disney want to be able to milk their old IP.
Trademarks are fine.

The reason patents were never given improved protections like copyrights were is because it would hurt big business and enrich the independent inventor

[Anonymous No.56844538]

>>56844463
there is no such thing as “intellectual property rights”
read kinsella “against intellectual property” it’s free online (obviously kek)

[Anonymous No.56844581]

anything that can only exist when enforced at gunpoint by the government is a bad thing for the economy overall

[Anonymous No.56844720]

>>56843592
Based
>>56844518
Pretty valid, but to pose a question about patents, what about prescription drugs? Big Pharma is able to charge way too much for meds because they have the exclusive rights to make the meds; the moonbats may have seized upon this issue but I feel it's still something to point out

[Anonymous No.56844742]

>>56844538
get 5 kids around a table.
give them a project.
at the end of the project have them talk credits (like who did what, who had which idea etc) .
the kids will know, or argue, about who's idea this was and who's idea that was and who thought of it first.

of course intellectual property exists.

what is culture and tradition and language if not intellectual property? it's a collective claim, true, yet because it is neither commodified nor monetised need not mean it isn't intellectual property.

and as i said before, a property's relationship with scarcity isn't what makes it a property or not.

i don't doubt there is an argument to make for 'there is no such thing as intellectual property rights' . I have pondered the question plenty and can formulate a handful of pretty good arguments pretty quickly for why there is no such thing. On the other hand, however, i can formulate much stronger arguments for why there is.
I mean, i won't go all Saxon Genitive, but that even on an anonymous basket weaving forum we need make distinctions between which words are yours and which words are mine, even here, anonymously, gives an indication as to the immense function a possessive predicate before an abstract noun has.

imagine a world without it. good luck.

intellectual property very much exists.
as i said before, as opposed to the normative, the essence of the thread might be better served by restructuring the question to ask how to preserve the best of intellectual property while getting rid of as much of the worst as possible...

discussing if intellectual property even exists is a philosophical discussion that has its merits but between the work of Plato and Aristotle, let alone the work of Hume more recently, 'around' the topic of ideas and what they constitute, i doubt there's much left to be said.
What with A.I however, well, that's for another day

[Anonymous No.56844779]

>>56843569
There is no such thing as functional capitalism without SOME sort of regulation or you'd get people stealing ideas nonstop and price gouging up the ass on top of other shit. Also real minimum wage would probably be like 5 dollars per hr. Not even meming.
Overall though the real way to fix the economy is to make real estate trade in a downtrend by making it illegal to sell a home for a profit aka higher than what you bought it for (taking away tax incentives too i.e. being able to have the loss act as a tax deduction), preventing homes from being rentable unless it's a roommate, and preventing companies from buying residential property. This would decrease the supply of job seekers per job opening as survival would be easier which in turn would transfer leverage to workers. It would also massively decrease tax payer money going to social programs as my idea would decrease crime rates, homelessness rates, poverty rates, mental health illness rates, etc.

Real estate is the root to all evil

[Anonymous No.56845044]

>>56844742
I don’t think you understand the word “property” at all.

[Anonymous No.56845056]

>>56844779
adults are talking itt, anon. go back to watching your gay twitch streamer who calls xirself an “anarchist” while also saying the government should force everyone to get the covid shots.

[Anonymous No.56845261]

>>56845056
Ya I'm the adult. You're the child that can't keep up with my basic econ 101 post lmao. Try to make an actual argument or sit your ass down while we grown men speak. Dumb bitch *spit*

[Anonymous No.56845277]

>>56845044
Can you make an actual argument for once in your life or are you going to keep on shitting up this board with your low IQ posts?

[Anonymous No.56845283]

>>56843569
it's not totally catastrophic unless you live in a 3rd world country enslaved by loans from the world bank & IMF who force you to abide by US copyright law.

inhibits the ability for developing countries to build themselves up because of patents. this is the huge evil you should be concerned about and nobody talks about it.

the imf and world bank are the definition of evil and are responsible for the outflows of billions from 3rd worlds to 1st worlds

[Anonymous No.56845305]

>>56843589
first post based post

[Anonymous No.56845311]

>>56845283
Its not a bad thing to hobble or cripple the collective third world for the prosperity of the first world (Read: The Good Guys) when doing so objectively results in a better world for everyone.

>Responsible for the outflow from third world to first world
Maybe you could all just stay and accept your lot in life instead of constantly trying to change classes.

[Anonymous No.56845323]

>>56845305
let me explain why it's stupid. I shouldn't be able to use the disney logo, mickey mouse, comic book characters, etc. as if it's my own property. That's straight up theft.

[Anonymous No.56845328]

>>56843569
>people who make shit are compensated for their work
Lmfao, that's a good one

[Anonymous No.56845393]

>>56845323
>making fanfic is equal to theft
this is your brain on wokeism

[Anonymous No.56845404]

>>56845323
While also valid, counterpoint; While when speaking of corporate characters like Mickey and such I understand things are a bit different, what about ideas where the author is dead, and has long since been dead (Edgar Rice Burroughs or Arthur Conan Doyle for example), or when the company that owns the character has long since neglected it/ is no longer in business (look up Public Domain Super Heroes, it's fascinating). I don't quite agree with the O-Town rationale of "all or nothing" at play with the "IP is bad" mantra, I personally feel there should be SOME protection of ideas at least for a time, possibly with conditions based on use, but it is important not to go too far the other way.

[Anonymous No.56845418]

>>56845311
you'll realize one day that a balance needs to be struck between perfect allocation of capital and morality. a world of 100% efficient economics is scary. thank about it

[Anonymous No.56845434]

>>56845404
The protection for such media should mainly extend towards counterfeit protection from people trying to profit passing fake goods as real. Labeling personal use of IP as theft is fukin stupid

[Anonymous No.56845435]

>>56843569
the free market does not imply that there are no rules or guidelines to follow. can you imagine an exchange where everything is allowed? it would be horrible, the idea is not that they are prisons, that's why i recommend you these 3
Kukoin
Kinetix
Kraken
the KKK of exchanges

[Anonymous No.56845439]

>>56845435
fuck George W bush

[Anonymous No.56845440]

>>56845435
you are not only wrong, you are also stupid

[Anonymous No.56845451]

>>56845261
>I'm the adult
>with my basic econ 101 post
kek
>>56845277
the private property system exists to efficiently allocate scarce resources in a decentralized, anarchist, and efficient way. intellectual property is not scarce and therefore is not property in the economic sense.

[Anonymous No.56845524]

>>56845044
and i don't think you understood much of what i wrote... so be it.

[Anonymous No.56845531]

>>56845451
1. Yes?
2. For you: >>56845323

>>56845404
I'm not against that
>>56845434
because it is theft, retard. You're basically saying you should be able to use things like the netflix logo, disney logo, nickelodeon logo, spongebob, mickey mouse, dragon ball z, ride aid, walmart, etc. as if it's your own property. It's not. I shouldn't be able to make some for profit game for a character that isn't mine without permission and I shouldn't be able to open a store and falsely label it as a "walmart" store. I shouldn't be able to make an online website and pretend it's amazon. Yes, it's theft.

[Anonymous No.56845540]

>>56845531
also not only theft but misleading

[Anonymous No.56845597]

>>56843592
He failed on gay marriage, blundered his foreign policy, and was in charge during the years leading up to the great recession. He was garbage.

[Anonymous No.56845636]

>>56845597
He ran on good shit and then did the exact opposite That's what republicans did before Trump.

[Anonymous No.56845704]

>>56845261
>econ 101
You literally believe in minimum wage.
You believe price gouging is somehow bad.
You believe in real estate taxes and that speculators are somehow magically the cause of price increases in real estate.

I bet you support the federal reserve you bootlicking subhuman.

[Anonymous No.56845712]

>>56845531
>It's not.
Ideas are not property lmao.
Disney never owned their logo in the first place.
You cannot own ideas.

[Anonymous No.56845718]

>>56845597
Much of the later failure of the WOT was because of Democrats fucking shit up (backing terrorists because they took a ride on Splash Mountain, forcing a set pullout date for Iraq, the Obama Admin fucking up foreign policy in general, not dealing with the corruption in the Afghan gov), the initial invasion and occupation was wonderful, tho I will admit Bush should have cleaned up Iraq and Afghanistan more early on. The GR was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank protecting their friends at Freddie & Fannie Mac by blocking Bush attempts to fix their shit and Clinton-era rules forcing banks to lower their standards for loans because "muh diversity" (Clinton felt the people getting bank loans were too white so forced banks to give loans to people who did not have the money to pay them back). Not sure what happened with Gay Marriage, shit should have been an amendment by term 2.

[Anonymous No.56845719]

>>56845524
“credit” is not intellectual property.
“culture” is not intellectual property.
I read and understood what you wrote.
it was just dumb.

[Anonymous No.56845723]

>>56845056
>xirself an “anarchist” while also saying the government should force everyone to get the covid shots.
It's pretty funny how all of the left wing "anarchists" are the most extreme authoritarian statists you've ever seen.
Every single one of them supports heavy government intervention without a hint of self-awareness.
I've seen ancoms that support central banking lmao

[Anonymous No.56845738]

>>56845704
>You literally believe in minimum wage.
I don't and that wasn't my point
>You believe price gouging is somehow bad.
Lmao you have to be trolling
>You believe in real estate taxes and that speculators are somehow magically the cause of price increases in real estate.
LMFAOOOOOOO you are trolling. Either that or retarded. Pic rel for anal fucking. You zoomers are so fucking stupid it's not even funny
Also you make no sense. Support the federal reserve? LMFAOOOOOOOOO hahahahahahahahahahaha
Real estate is the root to all evil, but manipulating the money supply is the second worst thing countries do

[Anonymous No.56845750]

>>56845712
By your logic I should be able to use the amazon logo when making an online store Fucking LOL

[Anonymous No.56845772]

>>56845704
also, you stupid fuck. Think for a second. The whole real estate market on the macro trades in a way that outperforms income. Just how fucking new to this world are you to not know this BASIC FUCKING SHIT
Holy
FUUUUUCK I actually can't believe people this FUCKING IGNORANT exist. THINk before speaking, retard. FUCK, that was ignorant

This dumb nigger actually just said real estate flipping doesn't cause them to go up.
L
M
F
A
O
I'm actually in shock. You have to be legitimately retarded. Like 40IQ to have said that

[Anonymous No.56845782]

>>56845531
>it’s wrong because I’ve labeled it “theft” and “theft” is wrong
Harry Potter is an infinite resource. that’s why it’s not property. all 8 billion people on earth could each write a hundred Harry Potter stories (800 billion total stories), and the character would still be available for J K Rowling to write a new Harry Potter book of her own. you can never “run out” of Harry Potter. someone could make an AI generate a trillion trillion Harry Potter pictures, and he would still be there for some tumblr xer to draw one for themselves during study block. it’s NOT SCARCE, so it’s NOT PROPERTY. it’s not “necessary” for the government to grant an artificial monopoly on intellectual property. you seriously need to read kinsella “against intellectual property” anon you are not aware of how bluepilled you are on this issue.

[Anonymous No.56845794]

>>56845723
kek they only call themselves anarchists because (some of) the commies from a hundred years ago called themselves that and because it sounds edgy.

[Anonymous No.56845816]

>>56845750
if you mislead your customer, then you are defrauding them. this doesn’t mean you’ve committed any crime against the company whose logo you’re using, but against the customer.

[Anonymous No.56845822]

>>56845782
Something being scarce or not scarce doesn't make it property/not property. Harry potter is also not even public domain yet lmao. And yes it's considered intellectual property. Pic rel. And no I shouldn't be able to use "Amazon" for an online store.

[Anonymous No.56845830]

>>56845738
>Lmao you have to be trolling
LMAO you're admitting you're economically illiterate
Price gouging is a good thing and makes resources available in emergencies. Take an econ 101 course dipshit.

> Pic rel
This image proves me right.
Central banks, fractional reserve banking, zoning laws and regulations have driven up the cost of housing. Speculators are just a component of this that have been manipulated by the state. Speculators aren't the cause, retard.
>You zoomers
You're repeating zoomer bullshit.

>>56845750
No, that's called fraud.
2 different things

>>56845772
Are you okay? No need to sperg out over your confusion.
You angrily replied to me twice lmao

[Anonymous No.56845854]

>>56845822
>Something being scarce or not scarce doesn't make it property/not property
that is exactly what makes it property or not property.

[Anonymous No.56845867]

>>56845830
1. Fucking retard clown alert LMFAO. Pic rel
2. That image is a result from real estate flipping in a for profit manner as it outperforms income, you fucking retard. FUCK, you're an idiot. And no that pic doesn't support what you said LMAO. It was some basic pre algebra I did which simply shows how much real estate has been outpacing income. It trades like a shitcoin and gets monopolized by oligarchs. Idiot
3. False. Zoomer idiot
4. Lmao just copying what the other anon said LOL. Also technically fraud is a result of regulators labeling it as such aka not letting the free markets roam without regulation. That actually adds to my point. No regulation = fraud up the ass
5. Your retardation caught me by surprise. I didn't know they made people that retarded

[Anonymous No.56845874]

>>56845854
Nope. That's just YOUR definition of property. If what you said were true, the concept of intellectual property wouldn't even fucking exist, but it does

[Anonymous No.56845924]

>>56845874
proving you have no idea about the origin of “the concept of intellectual property” at all.

[Anonymous No.56845929]

>>56845924
proving you just want to make up random fucking definitions out of your ass

[Anonymous No.56845970]

>>56845867
>google "people also ask" section is superior to actual economic thought
LMAO How retarded are you?
Why do the vast majority of economists disagree with anti price gouging laws?
https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/price-gouging/
Imagine if it wasn't economical to bring water or fuel to people in emergency situations. People would fucking die.
You socialist bootlickers support suffering and death.
>That image is a result from real estate flipping
LMAO commie, where do you think the funds came from to constantly flip the price upwards
If the monetary system wasn't creating new money and injecting it into the housing market, the price would decline or stay the same.
>It was some basic pre algebra I did which simply shows how much real estate has been outpacing income
Yes, I agree with this.
This doesn't prove your point at all lmfao
>Zoomer idiot
You're literally a zoomer tiktok communist lmao end your pathetic life
>Lmao just copying what the other anon said
Because he was correct?
>free markets roam without regulation.
Anti-fraud laws aren't "regulation". They're literally the free market itself.
It's literally in the definition of what a free market is you absolute retard.
It's like you're saying free markets need "regulations" to enforce private property.
Enforcement of private property is literally what a free market is.

[Anonymous No.56845978]

No wonder this communist zoomer loves IP so much.

They're all entitled parasites.

[Anonymous No.56846026]

>>56843569
>wastes a gorillion dollars making a revolutionary drug
>some cheap nigger just copies your formula and buys it cheaper because he didnt need to spend the extra time and money inventing it

Why the fuck would most tech be even created under this system?

[Anonymous No.56846047]

>>56845970
1.
>most economists
>literally all the first page and onwards of google shows it's horrible
lol. You really had to fucking dig in the deepest parts of the asshole of the internet to find a contrarian LOL.
You're an idiot that got the definition wrong hahahahaha and now are trying to save face. Also that is literally supporting jewish companies pricing people out of necessities LMFAO. And you call ME the bootlicker? How are you this brain dead?
2. Calling me a commie when you want to steal property LMFAO. Anyways you're retarded. It comes from retail getting scammed by jews pricing shit higher aka the free market. Just LOL. Free market works with luxuries for the most part. Never necessities because you get oligarch jews that scam the system by monopolizing the real estate market. For instance buying newly minted residential property and making them forever rents. The real solution that your down syndrome brain can't fathom is making real estate not trade profitably on flips (not counting contractors), that would cause income to outpace real estate which would fix 99% of the issues on this shithole. Pic rel, you fucking low IQ idiot

[Anonymous No.56846056]

>>56845978
>wants to steal property
>calls others commies
LOL
Your brain on down syndrome

[Anonymous No.56846061]

>>56843569
trademarks should be protected, you just cannot claim to be some other company.

copyrights and patents no, they are just state sponsored terrorism against
the autonomy of information use.

[Anonymous No.56846199]

>>56846056
>>wants to steal property
It's you who wants to steal property though.
You can't just call ideas "property" and use force against someone because you don't like that they violated your imaginary laws.

>>56846047
>of google shows it's horrible
Leftists think it's horrible.
Actual economists think it's a good thing.
>You really had to fucking dig in the deepest parts of the asshole of the internet to find a contrarian
You mean the majority of academic economists?
Here's another:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20531680231194805#body-ref-bibr14-20531680231194805-1

>Also that is literally supporting jewish companies pricing people out of necessities
So instead of selling people expensive goods, you would rather they have ZERO goods?
Imagine actually being this stupid and supporting starvation and death just because you're economically retarded LMFAO

>And you call ME the bootlicker?
You bootlick the state lmao

>Calling me a commie when you want to steal property
I don't
You do
> It comes from retail getting scammed by jews pricing shit higher aka the free market
What free market?
The inflation YOU SUPPORT is jacking up prices.
Historically in actual free markets, prices came DOWN for decades.
Why are you denying historical evidence?
>Never necessities
That's hilarious because it makes necessities far cheaper than any other system.
>onopolizing the real estate market.
What monopolies?
Companies like blackrock only control less than 1% of the entire market.

[Anonymous No.56846217]

>>56846047
>For instance buying newly minted residential property and making them forever rents.
Where is your evidence this is happening?
Do you actually believe that bullshit article that came out about blackrock doing this?

The home ownership rate has stayed roughly the same since 1950.
Where is your evidence these large corporations are trying to take everyone's homes and create a renter class?

[Anonymous No.56846317]

>>56846199
>It's you who wants to steal property though.
You can't just call ideas "property" and use force against someone because you don't like that they violated your imaginary laws.
By your logic I should be able to use spongebob, spiderman, mickey mouse, and goku as my own property. I should be able to open an amusement park, make shows, etc. by stealing other people's intellectual property.
But stealing isn't being commie, right? LMFAO fail at gaslighting
2. No, literally every fucking source says it's trash. Again, failure at gaslighting to save face. What's also funny is how you accused me of being a bootlicker when you support jewish pricing from companies. How the fuck does that make sense?
3. that makes no fucking sense and is a strawman argument
4. I literally shit on the government lmao. Fucking idiot. And you cock suck companies LOL
5. No, you want to steal property and then say I'm the commie LOL
6. Another strawman. I don't support the fed, you god damn monkey. LOL. What your monkey bitch brain doesn't understand is that the fed causing inflation with the money printing they did isn't the ONLY reason that cost of living outpaces income, you economically illiterate retard. Imagine being so fucking stupid to not realize real estate trades in a way that outperforms i come from the nonstop speculative flipping LOL
7. No it doesn't, dumb nigger. By your logic real estate would be cheap and income would have outpaced it which clearly didn't fucking happen over the decades LOL. I literally did the math in front of you and you STILL didn't understand it LOL
8. LOL dumb nigger. Pic rel.

Fuck, you're a special kind of stupid

[Anonymous No.56846353]

>>56846217
The pic: >>56846317
Just LOL. That AND the issue isn't just companies doing this. It's just how the real estate market is fundamentally structured as it will always fuck income on the macro. That's what your dumb bitch ass doesn't comprehend due to low IQ.
End of the day real estate does in FACT trade in a way that outperforms income on the macro aka decades btw. If you disagree, you're a retard that can't even understand the prealgebra I posted here: >>56845738

It is a FACT that real estate has DWARFED income. You also think the fed is the ONLY reason for income getting fucked by cost of living LOL. No, stupid bitch. Real estate trades in an uptrend and it outpaces income just from the trades alone. Fucking hell, imagine having to spell out how trading affects price.

[Anonymous No.56846355]

>>56846317
>By your logic I should be able to use spongebob, spiderman, mickey mouse, and goku as my own property.
Yes. You can draw a picture of spongebob in your comic book and sell it. Nothing wrong with that.
>I should be able to open an amusement park, make shows, etc. by stealing other people's intellectual property.
Yes.
Problem?
>2. No, literally every fucking source says it's trash.
Where are these sources?
You're literally disagreeing with supply and demand and claiming economists don't accept supply and demand.
Just fucking LOL
>What's also funny is how you accused me of being a bootlicker when you support jewish pricing from companies
I don't support "jewish pricing".
Speak english you subhuman communist poltard
>4. I literally shit on the government lmao.
Then why do you aggressively support government intervention?
>And you cock suck companies
I support companies that benefit my life.
You project your gay sex fantasies onto them for some strange reason but this doesn't negate the fact they benefit the working class.

>5. No, you want to steal property and then say I'm the commie LOL
Listen redditor, you can't just number arguments. I have no idea what part of my post you are referring to.

>I don't support the fed
Let me guess. You don't like the fed but you support a national socialist central bank.
How close was I?

[Anonymous No.56846367]

>>56846317
>What your monkey bitch brain doesn't understand is that the fed causing inflation with the money printing they did isn't the ONLY reason that cost of living outpaces income
It's basically the primary fucking reason lmao.
That and zoning laws.
It's funny that housing prices went DOWN before we got off the gold standard.
>Imagine being so fucking stupid to not realize real estate trades in a way that outperforms
Yes.
WHY does it outperform?
Could it be the endless injection of new money into the system bidding up prices?
According to you that has NOTHING to do with it.
You're actually that braindead.
>speculative flipping
Speculators can do this all they want. People speculate on the stock market all of the time and LOSE money. If this was a free market speculators would lose money in housing.
>By your logic real estate would be cheap and income would have outpaced it
Yes, if the government wasn't messing with the markets and we had a free market, yes.
Problem retard?

>>56846353
>It's just how the real estate market is fundamentally structured
It's the government that structured it in this way.
Why do you believe MAGIC is why real estate always goes up? LOL

>If you disagree,
I literally told you ten times that I agree real estate prices have skyrocketed far pass any real fundamentally supply and demand.
You're actually retarded lmao

>Real estate trades in an uptrend
lmao and you think endless free money from money printing has NOTHING to do with constantly bid up prices?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.56846377]

>>56846026
first, it mostly costs that much because of government regulations, not because it’s actually that expensive. second, it’s not some esoteric hypothetical theory that scientific and technological progress could continue without IP laws, it’s a literal fact that happens in real life. last I checked there were people dedicating their entire professional lives to looking at space through a telescope or digging up ruins in egypt, and they seem to manage to do their research without patenting and selling their results to corporate america for billions. I also know plenty of people who write open source code and post it online for the world to use freely.

[Anonymous No.56846386]

>>56846317
>>56846353
>>56846056
This guy supports intellectual property then calls others bootlickers lmfao

I bet he pays for music HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.56846396]

>>56846355
1. It's called theft. Just because you don't want to actually acknowledge it as property doesn't mean it's not
2. Yes. Read above
3. I posted one already, but I can screenshot the whole fucking first page of google if you want? kek
4. Worthless comment
5. You're a dumb nigger if you think 0 regulation works LOL. Think for a second. Here's another example. Exchanges are supposed to back your assets 1:1. By your logic they shouldn't and should have 0 enforcement for it. Food companies also can't have a certain percentage of rat shit. By your logic that restriction shouldn't exist either. LOOOL. Also fraud is only fraud because it is defined as such by regulation. By your logic it's fine and no one should be punished for it as that is a form of regulation
L
M
F
A
O
So easy to check mate you
6. Another worthless bootlicker brown noser comment on how you like to suck company cock
7. Huh? This one was related to intellectual property, you stupid bitch
8. Huh???? What the fuck is up with you and making up random strawman arguments to save face? That's how fucking weak your arguments are that you need to make shit up to try to gain leverage. If ai hate the fed, why the FUCK would I support ANY other central bank? How the FUUUUUUUUUUUCK does that make sense? Holy shit I actually want to smash your skull in because of how brain dead you are. How the FUCK did you think that makes any sense? LOL

in conclusion, fed =\= only source to income failing to keep up. Notice how I said ONLY, you dumb bitch? Meaning no, I don't support ANYONE touching the supply of a currency, dumb bitch. Fact of the matter real estate flipping like a shitcoin and outpacing income outranks all other issues as it's the main source to all problems. The second problem is ANY entity controlling the supply hence why people flee to shit like gold and crypto, dipshit

[Anonymous No.56846405]

>>56846386
You support theft of property and called others a commie, lol. A person that copyrights/patents/trademarks their shit has every right to own it. For instance if I have an idea for a weight machine and designed it, I sure as shit don't want someone else to say "that product is in your imagination so I should be able to replicate it too and make a profit off of it even though it was your idea first".
You're a commie. No, a person shouldn't be able to steal disney, an amazon logo, mickey mouse, or a patented product that an engineer or whatever designs. You couldn't come up with a product on shark tank? Tough shit, commie. Gives you no right to steal it

[Anonymous No.56846512]

>>56843589
Fucking based
Patent and IP laws hold society back
Humans are natural innovators

[Anonymous No.56846535]

>>56846512
By your logic everyone should be able to steal every product on shark tank, every piece of software patented by people/companies, every single weight machine, etc. and sell it as if it's their own.

If you are innovative, YOU should make your OWN product. Not steal someone else's

[Anonymous No.56846582]

>>56846377
>first, it mostly costs that much because of government regulations, not because it’s actually that expensive.
Are you on crack nigger? even with no goverment regulations its fucking expensive to make any drug in the pharmaceutical center, for example. All that just for some dude to come by, copy your shit and make it and even outpace you in the market cuz he doesn't have to charge more to cover the cost of research.

>last I checked there were people dedicating their entire professional lives to looking at space through a telescope or digging up ruins in egypt

Yeah because the goverment pays for 99% of that shit (since they basically print the money to pay them). No private enterprise would just pay a bunch of nerds to work to study crap that doesnt gives them profit, unless its for some dumb charity or crap to avoid taxes. So your solution would be to basically leave the goverment making all the ground breaking research and basically owning it, that won't totally backfire at all because we all know the goverment is ultra efficient.

>I also know plenty of people who write open source code and post it online for the world to use freely.
Yeah because some fat pedo writing some code is as expensive as having an entire laboratory to produce cutting edge technology.

[Anonymous No.56846834]

>>56846396
>1. It's called theft.
By people who don't understand what theft is.
Using someone's idea isn't theft, it's just copying lol.
>I posted one already,
You did not.
>By your logic they shouldn't
Uh no. If they didn't back your assets that would be fraud.
>Food companies also can't have a certain percentage of rat shit.
If they harmed you by putting rat shit in your food that would also be fraud and harming someone which is illegal in a free market.
>Also fraud is only fraud because it is defined as such by regulation.
Wrong. Look up the definition of a free market.
It means people's rights are protected.
>So easy to check mate you
I'm just casually laughing at how much of a dunning kruger zoomer you are. Look at you flailing around angrily lmao
>bootlicker
You literally worship the government and you also worship large corporations defending their "intellectual property" lol
>If ai hate the fed, why the FUCK would I support ANY other central bank?
Because people like you usually do such things. It's what natsoc bootlickers do.
I doubt you even know what a central bank is.
You're not against central banks because you worship government intervention.
>Holy shit I actually want to smash your skull in
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy fuck you're actually sitting there SEETHING in your seat irl. This debate means so much to you HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
End your pathetic life

>Fact of the matter real estate flipping like a shitcoin and outpacing income outranks all other issues as it's the main source to all problems.
I already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that government intervention is the reason why there is a bubble yet you deny reality.
You unironically think speculative bubbles happen out of thin air.
If trillions of dollars wasn't injected into the housing market do you honestly think speculators would profit from flipping houses?
End your life lol

[Anonymous No.56846838]

>>56846834
You're such a fucking idiot. I'm done humoring you

[Anonymous No.56846841]

>>56846405
>You support theft of property
No I don't. You do.
IP isn't real property, just read stephan kinsella.
You support stealing from people because they violated your imaginary laws.
>has every right to own it.
Because of what? Your feelings?
>For instance if I have an idea for a weight machine and designed it, I sure as shit don't want someone else to say "that product is in your imagination so I should be able to replicate it too and make a profit off of it even though it was your idea first".
kek, I see nothing wrong with this

>You're a commie.
Your housing policies proves you're a communist.
>No, a person shouldn't be able to steal disney, an amazon logo, mickey mouse,
Remember when you called me a bootlicker and now here you are defending large corporations like disney HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.56846844]

>>56846535
>By your logic everyone should be able to steal every product on shark tank, every piece of software patented by people/companies, every single weight machine, etc. and sell it as if it's their own.
Yes.
Problem?

>Not steal someone else's
Imagine crying over the fact someone made your idea into a product far better than you yourself did lol

>>56846838
HAHAHAHA
Everyone in this thread is mocking you.

[Anonymous No.56846851]

>>56846841
>>56846844
I hit a nerve or something? Lmao. You lost. You can't comprehend basic shit and I have a low tolerance for economically illiterate retards. I humored you more than I'd typically humor a moron, but I'm done with you.

[Anonymous No.56846852]

>>56843625
chatgpt please give me why IP is bad in the fort of simple maximum 5 words bullet points

[Anonymous No.56846860]

>>56846405
>>56846396
>>56846838
>>56846353
>>56846317
>>56846056
>>56846047
>>56845874
>>56845867
>>56845750
>>56845738
>>56845531
>>56845540

Look at how incredible angry I made this guy.
He's absolutely SEETHING irl
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.56846876]

>>56846860
I didn't read this, but here's the summary.
1. Central banks bad. Money manipulation bad
2. Real estate trading speculatively like a shitcoin = it outperforms income as the demand is high due to it being a necessity = creates all the dystopian shit I mentioned in the yellow images above
3. Justifying theft = you're a commie
4. No regulation = rat feces on your food among other depraved shit
5. You got checkmated

[Anonymous No.56846902]

>>56846876
>1. Central banks bad. Money manipulation bad
I really doubt you're anti central bank seeing how you worship all forms of government intervention.
>2. Real estate trading speculatively like a shitcoin
Gee it's almost as if speculative booms like crypto or real estate bubbles are the result of money printing or something.
Do you honestly think there would be a crypto boom and housing bubble if there wasn't money printing and instead we had DEFLATION?
If all prices were coming down why would you think housing prices would go up? Explain that logic.
>MUH SPECULATORS
Do you honestly think assets by their very nature always go up and that speculators can just charge high prices and other people would be forced to buy them?
What happens when there's no more money printing and people cannot afford to pay the prices the speculator is charging?
Would the speculator not have to lower prices?
Is this not econ 101?
It's hilarious you're failing basic economic principals like supply and demand and claim to know economics.
You're dumb enough to think anti-price gouging laws are good. Probably because you like seeing people starve to death.
>Justifying theft
Ideas are not physical property. Copying is not theft.
Sorry that you don't understand the definition of words.
>4. No regulation
I'm not against "regulation" as in free market laws. I'm against useless and harmful so called "regulation" which governments pass.

>5. You got checkmated
>CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

[Anonymous No.56846922]

>>56846902
>highly doubt you're anti central bank
stopped reading there. This is exactly why I'm done humoring you. You say the dumbest most ignorant shit to the point where I want to bash your skull in. I don't give a FUCK what kind of fake ass strawman bullshit fallacy you want to make up to try to gain leverage in this losing fight. That's all it is. You saying dumb shit to try to save face and gain leverage. In other words you argue like a child.
Also the summary ended this indefinitely. You lost. Get over it, child.

[Anonymous No.56846931]

>>56846922
Just to note there hasn't been a single thing I stated that was debatable. It's all objective facts. That's what the retard doesn't get. They focus so much on trying to gain leverage that they can't be objective with their arguments. Literal child

[Anonymous No.56846984]

>>56846922
I think you're just angry that you lost and have no argument lol
>You say the dumbest most ignorant shit
How is that ignorant? The vast majority of people are pro-central bank and you were extremely pro government intervention plus you used /pol/tard language. It was safe to assume you're pro-central bank and pro-fractional reserve banking.
>where I want to bash your skull in
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy fuck I'm actually laughing irl.
I managed to get you THAT mad.
I bet you actually punched a fucking wall HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Everyone get a load of this faggot.
>in this losing fight
Yeah for you.
Notice how you didn't respond to any of my arguments.
I accept your concession.
:^)

>>56846931
>Just to note there hasn't been a single thing I stated that was debatable.
Nah you just couldn't refute my arguments. What about my questions here:>>56846902
Lets watch you skip over them again.
Just close the tab and punch your wall again manchild. :^)

[Anonymous No.56846989]

>>56846984
Long winded babble I didn't read and you rely on reaction images to gain leverage too. Truly a child

[Anonymous No.56846997]

>>56846989
>no argument
Man this is too easy. You get mad too easily when you realize you don't have an argument.
Go punch your wall again you brain damaged teenager.

[Anonymous No.56846999]

>>56846997
You lost. Get over it. The summary alone >>56846876
fucks you a new one

[Anonymous No.56847011]

>>56846999
>ou lost. Get over it.
LMAO I'm actually unironically laughing irl.
You're probably the most butthurt retard I've ever come across on this website and it's been over a decade and a half kek.

You have NO argument.
You're absolutely fucking SEETHING to the point of damaging physical objects in real life.

>I WANNA BASH YOUR SKULL IN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FAGGOT

>The summary alone
Which was just a list of the arguments I already refuted. I again refuted that post here >>56846902 and you have no argument :^)

[Anonymous No.56847017]

>>56847011
>more long winded babble
This child has lost control of their emotions.

[Anonymous No.56847030]

>>56847017
>I don't understand basic arguments so it's "babble" to my smooth brain
LOL
My posting is REALLY getting to this guy.
He's probably going to think about this thread for WEEKS!
He's probably banging the walls and his mommy is yelling at him to shut the fuck up lmao

[Anonymous No.56847041]

>>56847030
You lost but you want the last word in to save face.

[Anonymous No.56847052]

>>56847041
>projecting
Why are you telling me exactly what you're doing?
I guess it hit close to home eh?

>I WANNA BASH YOUR SKULL IN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
>REEEEEEEEE MOMMY MAKE THE BAD INTERNET MAN STOP!!!

[Anonymous No.56847077]

Beware, there are pajeets in this thread pretending they have an ounce of actual knowledge when the only thing they actually know how to do is shit on the streets and steal from senile old people and children

[Anonymous No.56847086]

>>56847052
You lost hard
>>56847077
The guy above. I know.
>t.samefagger with one post
I really got under your skin, lol

[Anonymous No.56847099]

>>56847086
Dang that one anon really got to you, eh? Im actually impressed he got you seething this hard

[Anonymous No.56847105]

>>56845597
not to mention introduced DEI as official policy and the patriot act

[Anonymous No.56847120]

>>56847086
lmao keep posting
Give me updates of what's going on in your house right now.
How mad is your mom?
How many holes in your wall at this point?

[Anonymous No.56847131]

>>56847099
Lmao just copying me now?
>>56847120
You lost hard

[Anonymous No.56847146]

>>56847131
You had no argument, you couldn't refute anything I was saying and just got extremely mad and repeated the same arguments I debunked over and over and over.
Everyone in the thread saw it happen.
You lost. :^)

Updates on the drywall? Did you hit a stud?

[Anonymous No.56847172]

>>56843569
>in a free market, are heavy goverment regulated markets good?

[Anonymous No.56847178]

>>56843569
>compensated for their work
subjective
>original ideas are encouraged
plainly false, original ideas are discouraged

[Anonymous No.56847207]

>>56843569
They're not, it's artificially making rare something that's naturally abundant (information) and results in concentrating wealth in the hands of institutions that are already wealthy.

A case can be made that its a good incentive for creation but even then 70 years after the death of the author is way too fucking much.
Make it so intellectual property expires 10 years after its creation, 10 years of monopoly to profit of your idea is more than enough, then it definitely should belong to the people.

Imagine how much humanity would have stagnated if early innovations where copyrighted. We would still live in caves.

[Anonymous No.56847217]

>>56847146
>no argument
anal fucking here: >>56846876

[Anonymous No.56847247]

>>56847217
>fucking here: >>56846876
Which was just a list of the arguments I already refuted. I even responded to that post here: >>56846902
You have no argument :^)

[Anonymous No.56847288]

>>56844742
Might be the most midwit post I've ever read on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.56847301]

>>56844779
Bunch of nonsense. Just outlaw usury, peg the currency to gold/silver, and stop crony capitalism.

[Anonymous No.56847311]

>>56845323
you can't use the mouse if you're impersonating Disney because that's basically a scam, but of you make it clear that you're not affiliated with Disney then there's no problem.
Are you against parody?

[Anonymous No.56847321]

>>56845531
>I shouldn't be able to make an online website and pretend it's amazon. Yes, it's theft
You shouldn't be able to make an online website at all unless you pay royalties to whoever invented websites.

[Anonymous No.56847324]

>>56847247
Ass fucking here >>56847217
>:^)
you big mad
>>56847301
You lack basic econ understanding. Sorry you can't keep up. Post IQ
>>56847311
Parody isn't the same shit and is allowed, you idiot

[Anonymous No.56847330]

>>56847321
>You shouldn't be able to make an online website at all unless you pay royalties to whoever invented websites.
How the fuck does that make sense, you fucking idiot? This board is so brain dead LMFAO. This is a slippery slope. It's the same logic as saying "that machine was used with hammers so the inventor of hammers should get royalties". That's not how it works now, now is it, you fucking moron?
This fucking board LOL

[Anonymous No.56847342]

>>56847330
Why wouldn't it work like that? Why should you build your own hammer without paying royalties to the direct descendent of whoever made the first hammer 10000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.56847345]

>>56847324
>he's still posting after getting royally BTFO and mocked by everyone in the thread

>>56847330
>This board is so brain dead
then go back to rebdit since you're obviously from there

[Anonymous No.56847348]

>>56847324
>Parody isn't the same shit and is allowed, you idiot
So you're just describing the law as it is or are you urging for what should be?
Explain to me why I can freely use others intellectual property as a joke, but not to make something unironical?

[Anonymous No.56847351]

>>56847348
>urging
*arguing

[Anonymous No.56847352]

>>56847342
>>56847330
I love how this retard exposed the contradictions in his own thinking lol

If intellectual property should expire after a period of time then it's not really property.

[Anonymous No.56847371]

>>56847342
>Why wouldn't it work like that?
Nigger crack head does it work like that RIGHT NOW? LOL
And because you're stupid I know I have to answer this for you. The answer is no.
>>56847345
you lost
>>56847348
>So you're just describing the law
yes
>Explain to me why I can freely use others intellectual property as a joke, but not to make something unironical
So many fucking children, holy SHIT.
Midwit. A parody falls under the FIRST AMENDMENT. It's literally protected by the first amendment. If you want to use something that is owned "unironically", at that point it is theft. You are stealing intellectual property. For instance TODAY in real time you can make a spongebob parody, but you would not be allowed to make your own for profit spongebob show. That's how the law is written

[Anonymous No.56847380]

>>56847352
Nigger I never said I was against public domains lmao. Another fucking strawman. And it is quite literally under law labeled as intellectual PROPERTY
L
M
F
A
O
Fucking RETARD

[Anonymous No.56847397]

>>56847371
>>So you're just describing the law
>yes
Nobody here is describing the law as it is, we're arguing for what should be.
You were arguing against an imaginary position all along. Do you have autism? No judging, legit question. I'm good at spotting asperger people.

[Anonymous No.56847408]

>>56844742
Did you just compare language and culture to IP? IP has very specific legal protections against copywrite. Those things you mentioned do not. You're either being deceptive in your definitions or you just don't understand what it meant by IP, probably the latter given your reddit-tier brainless apologism for kikery.

[Anonymous No.56847415]

>>56843569

Yes, they are good. But, there needs to be limits. The idea that you can keep renewing a patent, or copyright every 10 years indefinitely should not be allowed.

[Anonymous No.56847423]

>>56847397
>Nobody here is describing the law as it is, we're arguing for what should be.
What you want is theft of intellectual property. If you want to copy a product from shark tank, tough shit. You should have came up with it yourself. Not steal it out of seethe, faggot commie

[Anonymous No.56847444]

>>56847423
Not sure what your mental illness is but it's not looking pretty.

[Anonymous No.56847498]

>>56847131
Copying what? I'm not gonna bother reading most of the shit you posted but just from the general tone of your posts I can clearly tell that you are a grade-A retard sperg.

[Anonymous No.56847542]

>>56847444
>1 post by this ID
Lol again?
>>56847498
tl;dr you're pretty damn stupid

[Anonymous No.56847608]

>>56847371
>you lost
You couldn't respond to my arguments and ADMITTED you lost then smashed holes in your walls while crying to your mother lmfao
>>56847380
>Nigger I never said I was against public domains
The mere existence of a public domain negate the idea that IP is "property".
Imagine if your real physical property only lasted 20 years like drug patents do lmao
>strawman
I have never once made a strawman towards you, you have done this many times to me.
Cope
> And it is quite literally under law labeled as intellectual PROPERTY
WHOA the government labeled something, I guess it MUST be true.
What do you mean you're against the patriot act? Are you against patriotism?

[Anonymous No.56847611]

>>56847498
>that you are a grade-A retard sperg.
He truly is.
He just throws a temper tantrum when proven wrong and tells you how much he wants to kick your ass....over the internet lmao

[Anonymous No.56847697]

>>56847608
>and ADMITTED you lost then smashed holes in your walls while crying to your mother lmfao
This fucking shizo is so mind broken that he's making up his own realities now LMFAO. Fyi I'm home now so different ID. Anyways get help, but first take an econ class

[Anonymous No.56847705]

>>56847611
You got your ass rimmed and are salty about it. Boohoo, bitch. You lost. Get over it

[Anonymous No.56847761]

>>56843589
personal ownership of physical property does the same thing
communism is literally the answer to all problems humanity faces, the only unsolved problem is that price planners need access to reliable information about the market. for anyone interested, I highly recommend reading works of Oscar Lange, probably the greatest economist in history.

unironically blockchain will solve those issues with properties like immutability and transparency, and using tools like smart contracts and oracles.

[Anonymous No.56847776]

>>56847761
communism will come when it will become feasible, and it will be glorious. don't resist the flow of history, but don't larp as the next Lenin either, you wont move the needle as history resolves itself

The is the most important red-pill

[Anonymous No.56847782]

>>56847697
>mind broken
You literally said this in the thread multiple times while everyone laughed at you for being a teenaged internet tough guy:
>Holy shit I actually want to smash your skull in
>you say the dumbest most ignorant shit to the point where I want to bash your skull in. I don't give a FUCK what kind of fake ass strawman bullshit fallacy you want to make
I'm right about your mommy and you punching holes in the wall, right? :^)

>>56847705
>You got your ass rimmed
Why are you having gay sex fantasies about me after losing the argument?
Where is your response to my points? You yourself admitted you're too angry to even debate me. I guess I fried your tiny brain lol

[Anonymous No.56847788]

>YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE I GAVE UP

[Anonymous No.56847810]

>>56847782
>>56847788
>:^)
You lost

[Anonymous No.56847815]

>>56845719

I will effort post and try my best to be polite.

Appears that you have conflated intellectual property with intellectual property rights. I suppose that's an innocent enough mistake to make and perhaps the fault is on me.
I clearly overestimated my audience and figured the conversation would be able to go beyond a Napster era libertarian type free market vantage point. Incidental contingency gone awry.

Of course culture is intellectual property. That it is a type of intellectual property which isn't, in the same way, protected along the lines of a patent or a copyright doesn't mean it isn't intellectual property. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind anon.

>>56845044
One anon said he thinks i don't understand the word property at all. Oh anon. If only you knew.
If we go back the way of propio, as the Spanish certainly use it today, or go the way of property / propriety (two sides of the same coin) , whichever which way frankly, the meaning of the word evidently lends itself to the inclusion of 'of one's own particular character and of and for one self'.
Not only is something property or not, something can also be a property of.
The of / for distinction creates an interesting discussion but i won't again overestimate the audience in this thread. Suffice it to say, the word property most definitely derives from a place where the 'i' (oneself) is included and understood as that 'i' which begets as well as that which gets.
From oneself / of oneself.
In the simplest way i can describe it, property isn't just applicable to that which is tangible but also to that which is intangible. That which is tangible we put our hands on, perhaps mould, and say ours.
That which is intangible we create from the mind. Abstract nouns and all that come with it. It is intellectual property. If we are to then adorn it and wrap it in rights, well, that's another road. but first, let's be clear about what it is.

[Anonymous No.56847819]

>>56847761
>price planners need perfect knowledge
lmao even.

[Anonymous No.56847825]

>>56847810
You admitted you lost lmao :^)
Tell me how mad you are right now.

[Anonymous No.56847831]

>>56847761
>Oscar Lange
That marxist retard that got refuted by austrian economists and who couldn't refute the ECP?

>>56847776
It's pretty sad when flat earth retards like yourself fall for the cult.

[Anonymous No.56847843]

>>56847825
>:^)
you admitted defeat with the smiley. You lose again.

[Anonymous No.56847868]

>>56847815
>Intellectual property
>or exclusive knowledge
>implies an IP owner.
Aka you supply proof of precedent case of extant source for a thought, then yes if its compelling enough to warrant argument would likely warrent intervention.

Culture, is not IP. Applications and machinations or manifestations of it could be.
But you creating a new culture in your mind, doesn't create a culture in reality. That requires multiple partners or a pattern of behaviour.

No anon legally IP is pretty strictly defined. Define what you mean by culture?

There are cultural intellectual properties, that's not what you were saying or claiming however.

[Anonymous No.56847872]

>>56847843
>NOOOOO DON'T SMILE AND LAUGH AT ME AFTER YOU UTTERLY REKT ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS AND I ADMITTED I LOST AND I GOT MAD AND PUNCHED MY WALL AND WOKE UP MY MOM
I literally can not stop laughing irl right now.

[Anonymous No.56847887]

Reminder that this fucking guy is getting ANGRY(like actually visibly steaming red angry irl) over the fact people are against Disney's IP monopoly.

[Anonymous No.56847897]

Avoiding Plato's 'ideals' up there beyond us, or let's rather say, not opening the door to the noumenal world and, rather, staying here, yes, culture and language, are creations of the mind.

That they are 'publicly owned' (see here, i'm addressing the libertarians in their own language) isn't what i am debating.
As i said originally, that something isn't protected by rights nor commodified nor monetised need not mean it isn't intellectual property.

Perhaps you knew this already, however perhaps applying the understanding of it appears to be another thing altogether.

I used the example of kids around a table discussing 'who had the idea first' to try to illustrate a point that obviously wasn't clear enough. I mean, it ought to be relatable. Who hasn't experienced that situation as a kid?
''it was my idea first!!'' James said to Michael.

What that shows is that it is completely natural to make propio / property of one's own (propio) ideas. In fact, it would appear to be that it would be contra-natural to not.

That those ideas are, generally, a dime a dozen, doesn't mean too much. In other words, their scarcity or lack of scarcity thereof doesn't actually, in the real world, impact their status as property. They are intellectual property.

Now, i ask you to imagine a world without that possessive distinction. It's a broad task, perhaps beyond many autists (not saying you are) , but a worthwhile task nonetheless.

So,it's brunch time, i'll end it here, at least for now. Intellectual property very much exists and the most elementary questions, asked in good faith, reveal as much. After all, can you conceive of a world where ideas and words aren't somebody's property?
Of course, of course, and of course again, you'll use a strict libertarian sense of property, but anon, we aren't, at least i'm not, 14 years old anymore, and even then, frankly, who couldn't say it was just an idea? Not even an original idea and yet, unbeknownst to me, neither scarce nor abundant.

[Anonymous No.56847911]

>>56847776
>>56847761
anons, in your revolution. What happens when the downtrodden eventually revolt against the power structures that come to exist?
are you only excited by the chance to reallocate yourself in a social hierarchy?

if that's the case, wouldn't your worldview be entirely hypocritical?

capital society is bad, as its inevitably corrupt against the poor.
But there must be those of mean and those without in communism, inevitably some must be due to corruption, when that requires correction what is your solution to put down the workers at the closing of the circle?

If you only want reallocation to correct your perceived slights then your goals are that of a capitalist. You are seeking improvements to your life through said allocation of capital. Not of the allocation of your labour. The fuck do you think this is.

[Anonymous No.56847919]

>>56847868
hey anon, not avoiding or anything. Appreciate the discussion. Already effort posted a couple of times here.
It's Sunday brunch and afternoon walk in the park time. Will try to respond tonight and if not then tomorrow, house and life permitting.
Or perhaps somebody else will take up the reins in my stead?
Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.56847993]

>>56843569
>In a free market economy, are copyrights, trademarks and patents good?
all the thins u mentioned are anti free market and anti property rights. however, in limited forms (much more limited than today) they are good. no immaterial "right" should exist for more than 10 years

[Anonymous No.56847997]

>>56843592
>the last time republicans had a real candidate. He could've beat biden

[Anonymous No.56848007]

>>56844506
all commercially sold software should not only lose its copyright in 10 years, they should also have to release the source code by law after 10 years

[Anonymous No.56848014]

>>56844742
>of course intellectual property exists.
its a misnomer, its anti property

[Anonymous No.56848126]

>>56843569

it depends, if you own a company and stamp your company label on a product and someone else uses your stamp, that's fraud.

However, using the design of the product and branding it under a different stamp should be legal and this is what is holding back innovation, yes it's gatekeeping and a form of totalitarian control that causes destruction of economies.

Ford is a company who broke the patent laws often because if they didn't their would be no Ford.

Patent laws are trash, however simple copyright laws pertaining to brand or stamps should be upheld so that customers know where items are coming from and the reputation of companies are kept responsible by their own actions and not the results of others' product.

[Anonymous No.56848231]

IP is the first bastion of a scoundrel.
He learns math (he had nothing to do with creating)
He uses computers (he had nothing to do with creating)
He reads books and languages (he had nothing to do with creating)
He uses minerals and metals of 100 different types daily (he had nothing to do with creating)
He uses the infrastructure built by the blood sweat and tears for billions of people (he had nothing to do with creating)

Then. THIS ABSOLUTE FAGGOT.
THIS FAGGOT HAS THE GALL.
He arranges all these things (he had nothing to do with creating).
He arranges them slightly different and then he says FROM NOW ON NONE SHALL BENEFIT FROM THE WORK OF OTHERS.
FROM NOW ON IT'S ALL MINE.

IP laws are the worst thing to ever exist.
IP is not real.
IP is the tool of tyrants and absolute faggots on ego trips.

There is no counter to this.

[Anonymous No.56848513]

>>56848231
no counter?

there is.
there's plenty.

you say intellectual property isn't real. i mean, intellectual property is obviously real.
a child say's ''that's my idea, i had it first.''
a child writes a story ''by James Schmidt'' .
these are first order examples of an abstract concept.

What i will continue to concede, that which i've conceded since the beginning, is that just because intellectual property obviously exists does not necessarily mean it ought to be ordained with rights and protected by law, and if it is to be so then how much (up to which point of similitude? for how many years? etc) well, that's another point and i would even venture to say is actually the most pressing one.
Nevertheless, intellectual property very evidently exists. That the rights in which is it enshrined overreach, are abused, and set out in bad faith, well obviously.
But of course it exists, you can see it existing from almost any form of human interaction as there is a constant pronoun noun possessive distinction. He thinks, she said, i love you, i was thinking of thinking of you.
If you want to go to the deepest level man has ever gone then you might say there is no distinction between the subject doing the thinking and the idea itself, much like how the thunder and the lightning are very much the same and. singular phenomena but it's us who distinguish them for the sake of heuristics and making sense of the world. We form structures that serve us to make sense of the world.
You can get all anarchic breaking every structure down but that's nay functional nor making sense of the world.
And are we not to make sense of the world?
If so, intellectual property is very much real.
Need intellectual property be enshrined in rights? that's another question and the two are consistently being conflated in this thread.

fwiw. i agree, up to a point, that IP laws as they are, are the bastion of a scoundrel.
doesn't change the fact that intellectual property very obviously exists.

[Anonymous No.56848591]

>>56848513
The child didn't have the idea first. He simply claimed to have it.

Now, explain how an idea is property when everyone can simultaneously have the idea in their head?
>obviously exists
No. Your example doesn't prove that it's
a. property
b. owned
c. original
You've simply mad a claim with no backing.

What can be owned is PHYSICAL OBJECTS. Two people cannot have the same physical object. Two people cannot occupy the same space. It's impossible.

You are twisting in the wind when the obvious is right in front of you.
YOU DO NOT OWN IDEAS AND THEY AREN'T ACTUALLY YOURS.

Everything is a continuum of knowledge, based on millenia of previous thinkers and postulators.

[Anonymous No.56848783]

>>56848591
''the poem was not of my pen nor of my ink,
tis was the muses who brought me that which i thought i think.''

anon.
the idea that thoughts, that ideas, are a thing which exist outside of us is at least as old as Plato's ideals - which i've mentioned in this thread already - and more recently Kant's noumenal , especially when appreciated through the prism of Hume's necessary connection.
Or to put it more bluntly it's essentially true of an idea to say that is 'everybody's idea' but in reducing thinking and ideas to 'that' then you take thinking backwards, not forwards. These are epistemological claims.

That two people can simultaneously have the same idea does not mean the idea as they experienced it is not their own. Your criteria are convenient to your argument but ultimately anarchic and not in the slightest bit arcane. You are, for want of a better way of putting it, stripping the individual of his sovereignty and autonomy. You are saying his thoughts are not his own, but everybody's. You are saying his ideas are not his own, but everybody's.
Think about what you are saying anon, how this could be applied.
A child says ''i had this idea'' / ''i thought'' ...
imagine a world where he doesn't think it but everybody before him and around him has thought it THROUGH him.

I used the lightning / thunder analogy to try to make my point. After the next paragraph i won't try anymore.
In the grander scheme of things, you are cutting your nose to spite your face.

The etymology of the word property, as i've touched on already before, if you speak Spanish or French, you can hear it and feel it in the, for example, ''mi propio'' / ''mon propre'' construct. Those words, or rather their grandfathers, are from where the word 'property' comes from. And, as i stated in here before, the other side of the coin too, from property to propriety. You'll learn all you need with regards to ip, not ip rights, by looking at the word property and how people behave.

[Anonymous No.56848842]

>>56848783
>That two people can simultaneously have the same idea does not mean the idea as they experienced it is not their own.
Yes. Everyone can have it at once.
That's the point. So you can't call it someone's "property."

You are getting tangential and not really addressing the nut. I've made none of the claims you ascribe to me about people's "experience" and if "it's their own."

We are talking about IP. IP is a construct that tyrants use to manipulate people and control these ideas.
You taking the term apart and focusing on "property" misses the entirety of the discussion.
It's a deeper discussion, but a different discussion.
I am big into words, roots, meanings historically,etc. (I have an antiquarian dictionary collection and pick words and then look them up in ten 100+ year old dictionaries as a hobby all the time not even kidding).

HOWEVER, that entire discussion can only be had if you avoid that "IP" is a political, lawful term used to control people.
If you separate the words, avoid the law and force behind the words, then your comments are more pertinent.

The problem with "IP" isn't the words or the abstractions behind them. It's the guns, threats, and force that come with "IP" as it's applied in OPs question.

[Anonymous No.56849042]

>>56843569
guilds and mafias using mumbo jumbo hocus pocus peepee poopoo and assassination to guard valuable trade secrets

[Anonymous No.56849126]

>>56843569
They were originally designed to allow the inventor enough time to gather investment to build a business for his invention and get a head start on production once the patent expired. Over time (((greed))) set in and industries demanded longer patent terms so they could profit from (((royalties))) for using their idea long after they invented it. It’s the exact same thing Disney did with the copyright system

[Anonymous No.56849232]

>>56844403
Can't believe there is still high IQ people around.

[Anonymous No.56849387]

>>56849126
>They were originally designed to allow the inventor enough time to gather investment to build a business
kek bluepilled normies are hilarious.
They were designed for nefarious purposes and sold to you and other normies with the reasoning you just presented.
At no point was it not nefarious and intended to benefit the few at the top. The patent holder is rarely, historically, the actual progenitor of the "idea" or "machine".
And when they are, it's because they simply combined two or more things already invented.

[Anonymous No.56849534]

>>56847897
>>56848513
>>56848783
the worst type of poster on this site. he knows the thread is about IP laws, and that when we say intellectual property isn’t property because it isn’t scarce, we are referring to a specific definition of the word property, a legal and economic use of the word. his attempts to derail the entire thread by insisting that we only use the definition of property that he wants to use is unfortunately standard procedure for midwit wordcels who read philosophy for fun.

[Anonymous No.56849619]

>>56849232
there 'are' still high IQ people anon, 'are'. 'There are high IQ people' anon. 'Are'.

Conceit of irony aside, for anons to state categorically, and apparently sincerely, that property must by definition be scarce, or more accurately that intellectual property isn't actually property because it isn't 'actually scarce', is akin to taking an officers oath in the libertarian army and being sent to the frontline undermanned undertrained and effectively unarmed.
The Jesuit missionaries of yesteryear would have been less brazen in their insistence.
When lefties state men are women and women can be men you can at least forgive the advocates for being little more than naive. With different inputs their output would be different. I know this is a board, by and large, of autistic doomers who mistake their insularity and 120 iq's for actual genius and being right about everything (denial) but by golly, to earnestly believe that a quality of a property is its being scarce and that, therefore intellectual property doesn't exist ( not that intellectual property rights are wrong, unethical, ought to be changed, but actually believing that intellectual property doesn't actually exist) is bordering on the absurd. You can't construct a framework for interpreting the world if you deny the existence of intellectual property and all that comes with it.

'Sorry Michael' says the teacher, ''that isn't your idea Michael, you didn't think it Michael, everybody who has ever lived it and everybody in the class with you thought it with you Michael, they thought it through you Michael.''
Absurd.

Tell me intellectual property rights are anathema to the libertarian spirit. Tell me intellectual property rights are designed to guard trade secrets and maintain monopolies. Tell me tell me tell me. I agree. But to tell me intellectual property doesn't exist means to have not comprehended the repercussions and followed the logic half way through (let alone all the way through).

[Anonymous No.56849658]

>>56849534
anon, that 'specific definition of the word property' is a convenient definition that means neither anything meaningful or constructive but fits conveniently in the libertarian worldview.

not attempting to derail the thread. that's the truth.
was trying to engage in the conversation.
have evidently failed.
that's on me.

i see now that the thread was supposed to be

''intellectual property rights bad because not the same as intellectual property.''
''yeah anon, lawyers over regulate and this not nice.''
''correct anon. protecting monopolies. not in spirit of free market.''

^ that is basically what was expected.
Trying to engage in a conversation about what property actually is and how that pertains to intellectual property, i asked too much.

my bad.
have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.56849880]

>>56849534
Correct. They are close to insufferable.
>>56849658
No. The thread was supposed to be a discussion but within certain parameters. There didn't need to be an answer, OP was probably genuinely interested in the discussion.
But fellating yourself and ignoring the entire point of the discussion does not actually contribute anything.

I'd almost guess you are a woman. Women have a very hard time understanding if/then points, contextual points, and discussions being had within certain parameters.