I care for them both, and even more for the evolution of medicine for our possible grandchildren.

“it’s widely acknowledged among economists that copyright and patents,
among other things, are government granted monopolies, and they are
often given as examples of such monopolies.”

I’m not that much into theory anymore at this stage of life, but it that’s what economists say it’s fine with me. And I’m hopeful the governments of the world have made the right choice.

It was interesting discussing though, sorry for the delay, best of luck.

Yes, this seems to be exactly it. I disagree completely, and I’ve met plenty of people who support copyright who don’t see it as a form of property. Personally I see it as absurd to think of it as such, and likely a symptom of propaganda, but you are free to do so, obviously.

“if you think of this more theoretically or if you think the
non-copyright and piracy route can produce better cumulative results for
mankind.”

I care more about freedom than art, but I do think that copyright is no longer needed, for one because computers and the internet provides a means of creating and distributing art without cost to the creator. I also don’t think it was ever an appropriate means of doing what it set out to do, regardless of how effective it may have been at one time.

“on the preceived monopoly of one creative work in an ocean of millions
of others, seems to me more like a badly prolonged chase scene in
defence of piracy ethics.”

Actually, from what I’ve seen, it’s widely acknowledged among economists that copyright and patents, among other things, are government granted monopolies, and they are often given as examples of such monopolies.

“I’ll try to avert landing on this planet any time soon…”

I don’t blame you.

I might check out that book, but I have several others I’ve been planning to read for a while, so I’m not sure if I’ll ever get around to it.

“I, obviously anti-piratic, saw the analogy of hordes of the pirates using their manpower to suffocate the creatives, just like the communists stole the wealth built up by the work of the rich.”

Well, given that communism (as it has ever been implemented) is where the state owns everything, and that piracy doesn’t take ownership of anything away from anyone (I covered this multiple times with SoundnuoS, I don’t feel like repeating myself again), I see quite the reverse: copyright is the government restricting everyone’s use of their property to give a protective monopoly to producers of artistic works. This is a socialistic practice.

But I don’t want to start another discussion, it’s clear that we see things in much different ways.

However, these two short comments

“can result in tyranny of the masses”
“Also known as democracy. /sarcasm”

reminded me of a book I once read: Markets and Democracy (Exiting the Tyranny of the Majority) by Bjorn Wahlroos (it’s available for Kindle). He’s an economist and a banker, seems hugely pro free-market and in the book shares some of the views by both of you. Believe it or not.

For me, his playing with the idea of the tyranny of the majority & democracy was interesting. It has it’s arguments for both sides. I, obviously anti-piratic, saw the analogy of hordes of the pirates using their manpower to suffocate the creatives, just like the communists stole the wealth built up by the work of the rich. But you can read it from different angles.

I had a look at Bastiat and it seems I agree to just about everything in it. Certainly he also sees the need to strongly protect the right of property ownership, whilst demanding absolute freedom to trade and with it feed progression.

So, basically, “jc” and “Desperately Positive” disagree in that I see copyright as property and you don’t. And I can even hear it! ;) My reason: I see copyright as the best tool to create the best medicine and literature for mankind. I’m not certain if you care about the “best” angle; if you think of this more theoretically or if you think the non-copyright and piracy route can produce better cumulative results for mankind.

I’ll have a look at what you and SoundnuoS have continued below, but have no need or time to continue, as our battle trenches are now neatly mapped and either side is unlikely to surrender. We see our weapons differently and also the resources available for creating the “nuclear bomb” to end the war to end all wars. :-)

(I’d like to think protectionism is more xenophobic and nationalistic than socialistic.)

(And the original post by RF “Wing Commander”, on the preceived monopoly of one creative work in an ocean of millions of others, seems to me more like a badly prolonged chase scene in defence of piracy ethics. A nice little theoroid, not much more.)

So, thanks for the discussion, I’ll try to avert landing on this planet any time soon…

The author owns the form. Creating something with an identical form is encroaching on the author’s property.

The form is not an object.
It’s an object’s property.

You can own objects. You cannot own properties of objects like their shape or their colour.
That in itself is something incredibly ridiculous (and impractical) as it would require world-wide surveillance to be enforceable (and also the complete removal of all privacy).
It just doesn’t come close to making sense.

The rest of your delusion and misunderstandings were already debunked by jc pretty effectively to the point that now you’re trying to redefine globally well-defined concepts in order to have them fit your flawed assumptions.

oh wait… you managed to not learn a single thing you were told.

If two identical texts carry different meaning for the same person, then it’s because of factors outside the text. Objectively, those two texts will carry exactly the same meaning.

No, that’s because the meaning is the result of interpretation, which is always something subjective, because the rules themselves are subjective.

Real events taking place in time are objective fact. The consequences they have are objective fact.

Please stop using oxymorons….

Just because something happens doesn’t make it subjective any less and that’s because of their cause.