1. In order for a property claim to be valid, it must have been acquired validly.
2. To be acquired validly, the acquisition needs to have satisfied two conditoins:
A: The previous proprietor gave it voluntarily
B: It was theirs to give
3. For the previous proprietor's claim to have been valid, they, too must have acquired it validly - by satisfying the previous principle
4. This process repeats all the way back to the poriginal proprietor, the creator. In order for a claim of ownership to be valid, there must be an unbroken sequence of valid ownership back to the creator. If there was any discontinuity in th dsequence of ownerhsip, then no claim subsequent to that disctoninuity can be valid.
5. Since no person created the Land, no person eever owned the land - and hence the Land was never anyone's to give, and no land-ownership claim can ever be valid.
6. Since no person created any Living Being (human or animal), no person has ever powned any Living Being (human or animal) - and hence a Living Being was never anyone's to give, and no claim of ownership can ever be valid over any Living Being (human or animal)
7. Since objects are the only things a person can create, objects are the only things that can ever be property in any sense. Land, people, and animals are not property. and thus may not be bought or sold.
8. To claim such ownership, is an act preparatory to violence, as believing oneself to possess authority to commit violence is a prerequisite to committing it. Thus, a person making such a claim may be considered to constitute a danger to others, and Law Upholdment would be justifed in placing them under custody for the protection of othes.
A threat of violence is violence in itself, and is not peaceful, and thus not covered under freedom of expression. Same for incitement of violence.
intellectual property is the cause of your frustration
with computer ,with phone, all programs
every time you get frustrated, connect this, all of that is because of copyrighting
all problems with tech we've already solved
but different companies "own" different pieces of the solution
and none of them can provide the entire solution without violating "copyrights" of the others
so nobody gets to build the perfect widget
we COULD build the perfect one, but not allowed to. it's illegal under crazy propconsc "laws"
All tech could be very best and wholesome version of itself, rightnow.
we have know-how, but copyright rules are restricting us
restricting ourselves fromevolving to a mature civ because of intellectual property
"But copyright drives innovation! Without coyright there won't be innovation!"
It depends on what kind of innovation you want.
Innovation is as old as humanity. People have been innovating for 200,000 years, long before there were any "copyright laws."
"But... copyright makes it faster. It increases innovation."
Indeed, it increases ONE KIND of innovation - but there's more than one kind.
In fact, there are two different kinds of innovation:
1. Pro-social innovation
2. Anti-social innovation
The first kind is something that serves society,and makes it better.
The second kind is something that serves the innovator, by getting him more money, by tricking society into thinking the innovation is good, when in reality, it corrupts and deteriorates society in the long run
The first kind identifies a problem first, and then seeks a way to solve it.
The second way invents the technology first, and then seeks a problem to retroactively justify the invention.
Pro-social: 1. Identify a problem. 2. Innovate a way to solve it.
Anti-social: 1. Innovate first. 2. Seek a problem to justify the invention after it's invented.
An example of the first would be Penicillin. There's a problem: disease. Disease causes suffering and death, and penicillin solves the problem.
And example of the second type would be the automobile. The car was invented in the early 1900's, and marketed to wealthy people as a toy. There was no problem it attempted to solve. What was the problem? "Rich people don't have enough toys to play with?"
It was only after the auto industry exploded and began destroying the world, that anyone felt compelled to rationalize its existence, by retroactively coming up with problems for it to be a solution for.
"But it does solve a problem! My grocery store is 5 miles away from my house! Without a car, I'd have to walk all the way!"
Your grocery store was PLACED 5 miles away from your house BECAUSE such distance rationalizes the use of the automobile. Before there were cars, your marketplace would have been in your Village, and you could walk there in 5 minutes.
Automobile manufacturers deliberately redesigned the urban layout of America to deliberately put things far away, for the sole purpose of creating demand (and outright necessity) for their products.
They ripped apart the social fabric to retroactively justify the existence of their product.
That's anti-social innovation.
Copyright only incentivizes anti-social innovation. It does NOT incentivize pro-social innovation, because pro-social innovation does not require any financial incentive.
The only purpose of copyright is to make sure the innovator gets rich.
And if getting rich is your only motivation for innovating - if you wouldn't have innovated without the promise of wealth - then your invention is an anti-social one.
Think about it. If there was a problem you really wanted to solve - if people in your community were suffering, and you wanted to help them - you'd be willing to invent a solution regardless of whether you get paid or not. If your motivation is truly altruistic (and your invention is pro-social), then the promise of getting rich won't be necessary to drive your innovation.
Without copyright, pro-social innovation will still occur. The only type of innovation that will be stifled is the anti-social kind, and that's a good thing, because the anti-social kind rips apart society (not to mention the biosphere upon which every society depends).
"OK, I understand. I think you make a good point. But... what about art? What about music? Surely you must be in favor of artists getting paid for their work? Surely art must be a different category - one in which copyright is a good thing?"
Copyright is still not a good thing. Not even for art.
If an artist creates a physical work, with their hands, then they can sell it and get paid for it, without copyright. Because each unit involves the artist's labor. Copyright is irrelevant when it comes to physical works.
Copyright is only relevant for artwork that can be easily replicated, either digitally or via a printing press.
"So you don't want musicians and authors to get paid for their music and books?"
We have a better question: If they don't get paid, will they still make their music and write their books?
"Maybe some will, but many probably won't."
And would that be a bad thing?
Everyone knows that our artistic landscape is absolutely cluttered with junk. Some songs and albums are timeless masterpieces that withstand the test of the ages, and are still beautiful, decades (or even centuries!) after they were first composed.
But for every true work of art, there are 100 pieces of consumerist, record-industry clutter, which serve no function except to fill up an album to sell it. We collectively refer to this type as "crap", and we all - even you - be honest - wish it weren't there. It detracts from the real music.
Guess which type is incentivized by copyright?
A true artist will produce their work because it's an expression of their soul. It's literally fighting to get out of them. They need to sing it - they need to play it - they'll go crazy if they don't.
When something comes from the soul, you don't need any promise of financial incentive.
If you do need an incentive, then it's not coming from your soul.
And if it's not coming from the soul, why should anyone even listen to it?
Why should we, as a society, pay you to clutter our artistic landscape with it?
When there is no more copyright, true artwork will continue to be created, and consumerist garbage will stop clogging up the airwaves.
It's a win-win for everybody.
"But musicians still need to eat and pay the bills..."
So sing! Play! Dance! Perform! Do it live! If a musician performs live, they can get paid that way. A live performance can't be replicated - it's a unique experience, one which people are always willing to compensate you for.
And if you're a composer who writes songs (for instance, digital/electronic music), but doesn't perform them, you can still get paid through crowdfunding. If people love your work and appreciate your work, they'll be willing to give something back to you. They won't need some suited, neck-tied, cigar-smoking record industry executive to force them. In fact, if that parasite disappears from the picture, and all payment is voluntary, people will be more willing to pay, because the issue will no longer be "can I get away with free downloads", but "should I?"
"What about authors?"
The greatest works of literature - the classics - were written before copyright existed.
What do Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, ......... all have in common?
None of them expected to be paid for their work. But they wrote it anyway. Because it needed to be written.
They were answering to a higher calling. And it shows in their works.
If something needs to be written... if it truly comes from the Creative Realm, that unexplained world that the true spirit of the artist inhabits - then it will be written, even though the gates of hell should bar the way. Money is of no consequence.
"OK, I get what you're saying. I totally see the distinction between true art vs. consumerist stuff. But... I'm still concerned about the artists - even the consumerist ones. Yea, I might be annoyed by their mediocre clutter, but I don't hate them, and I don't want them to starve. If a lot of artists go "out of business", won't this create a lot of suffering and economic problems? Aren't you concerned about their livelihoods? You don't want them to be poor and starving do you?"
Of course not.
But now our discussion is leaving the realm of art, and entering the realm of economics. It's a different discussion.
Think about what you just said. We were discussion art, and then the issue of money inserted itself and derailed our discussion. If you can't talk about art without also talking about money, don't you see how this is a perversion - how our current capitalist economic system twists and perverts everything?