/liberty/ - Liberty

stealing is bad

Stealing is an act of freedom.

>>85345

copying =/= theft

>>85343

DRM and keeping code server side is the ideal solution. After that having media consumed in theaters with cameras banned. There are many ways to maintain so called intellectual property without the threat of state violence.

>>85415

Hey, cool it with the anti-American remarks. I'll have you know we're a hot and happening corner of the piratical world. But I see you say "funding their world empire" so I can only assume you mean "The United States Government" in which case no need to cool it with the remarks.

"Intellectual Property" isn't truly property, copying isn't theft. Someone doing the thing you were doing, or the thing you spent infinity years figuring out is infuriating, it feels like theft but it's not. Not in any concrete way. There's all kinds of lengthy arguments against so-called Intellectual Property but it is sufficient, in my opinion, to simply point out that one cannot steal something without transferring its ownership from someone else and copying leaves both parties with the item in question. There are many reasons to pretend there can be this kind of mystical property which you can have stolen from you yet still own, but they are all as the poster I replied to confirms: Bullshit. The whole issue is held up by people who want to squat on ideas and protect their jobs.

I support piracy simply because creatives tend to be culturally/socially far-left and their hypocrisy in shitting on free enterprise and then turning around demanding their right to make a profit and a living by IP is absolutely incensing. When the entertainment industry stops promoting the degeneration of the populations enriching them, then I'll stop going out of my way not to pay them jack shit.

>>85425

Fuck off, nigger.

>>85431

>no one has said in this thread yet

>>85347

>>85434

Get some reading comprehension.

>>85343

https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

Any property is a legal status.

>>85343

IP is a monopoly

>>85425

AnCaps are split between being for and against IP. There is no universal position on it.

>>85431

>commissions and patronage

>furniggers and hipster welfare

That only proves Salvador Dali correct. True art can only thrive under authority because the masses just push for lowest common denominator swill or their degenerate appetites.

>>85427

>t. Applel fag

there will be no copyright nor intellectual property in an ancap society, thus piracy wont exist

Intellectual property and actual property are mutually exclusive concepts, because the first restricts the right to rearrange the second.

>>85470

Commissions and patronage are how art has always been made historically. And under whose authority should art be made? You realize that most entertainment today is anti-white propaganda made by Jews? Crowd-investing solves this problem. If niggers are going to pay for something, they will pay for some nigger-tier shit, if white people are going to pay for something, they will pay for something whites can enjoy, I don't know what lowest common denominator you're talking about, it's not like we're all funding and designing the same game.

>>85470

>Sistine Chapel was a commission

>Last Supper was a commission

Try again, sweetie

ideas are not property

>>85508

>>85513

The commissions and patronage you're referring to came from the educated and moneyed aristocracy who were well-informed enough and acculturated to aesthetics to possess discriminating tastes. The furries and sados paying for comic book porn on Patreon are not to be compared. Disgusting.

>And under whose authority

People who know shit from shinola. Who can tell fine and transcendental beauty from clown vomit.

>Muh Jews and niggers

I don't care if the masses are niggers, nords, or night elves. The commoner among them is too base to be permitted a stake in the reigns of enduring culture. The overman is simply too rare.

>Try again, sweetie

No need. I am right the first time.

>>85517

>I am the arbiter of quality

Something tells me you are not

>>85517

If you were truly an overman like you say you are then there is no reason for you to not want a free market, as the overman you would only be able to out-compete low IQ commoners and become rich enough to fund the patrician fine arts that you enjoy.

The only reason you are against a free market is because you realize that you're the lowest common denominator that you're talking about, and you will get out-competed by people much better and smarter than you unless a state comes to your rescue and pulls everyone down to your level.

>>85519

Ah, well you weren't asked and never will be.

>>85524

I do not say I am an overman, but you're still wrong. An unregulated free market empowers plebs to collectively overwhelm a quality individual. See: The West for the past 70 years.

And no, I'm against a free market because I know all to well the power of stupid people in large groups.

>>85525

>An unregulated free market empowers plebs to collectively overwhelm a quality individual. See: The West for the past 70 years.

You mean the same "free market" made up of a cartel of big businesses that's gets millions of dollars of subsides, tax credits, and unprecedented union legal power from the government, that maintains archaic distribution systems to force out competition? The same "free market" that indoctrinates communism into the minds of millions in a way that'd make Antonio Gramsci shed tears of joy?

>Constructed information like an original character should belong to the creator until 20 years after his death at which point its protected under a creative commons license. Or, in his last will and testament, the Creator can bestow ownership to any person he chooses, but not a company only a person. That person can bestow it again, and so on.

Information is non-rivalrous, so it can never be property. The reason for property rights is to solve disputes regarding scarce, or more specifically, rivalrous resources. I and another individual cannot use the exact same eggs, chocolate and other ingredients to make our own chocolate cakes, but we can use the same recipe information and our own ingredients to do so. Speaking of which, by your logic, wouldn't "original" recipes fall under the definition of "constructed information" as much as "original" characters? What about fashion and architecture designs? If creators of fiction can own their characters, it would only be just if chefs, architects, fashion designers, and other creatives owned their recipes, architecture designs, fashion designs, and other constructed information respectively. And what the hell do we have then?

>>85525

>And no, I'm against a free market because I know all to well the power of stupid people in large groups.

aka "collectivism", aka "government"

>An unregulated free market empowers plebs to collectively overwhelm a quality individual.

A free market doesn't empower plebs, it empowers the most capable individuals to reach their full potential instead of forcing high IQ geniuses to work in a gulag together with low IQ idiots in the name of "fairness". The "plebs" also benefit from a free market, but only indirectly as a result of the most efficient people doing their job well and bringing value to society, eg: plebs get lowered prices on products and services as a result of competition between businesses, but they don't benefit as much as the patrician business owners themselves because plebs are too dumb to provide a service to society and to reap the profits that come with it in a free market environment, all they can do is rent out their labour to the highest bidder and expect lowered prices from competition between businesses.

>>85709

>Information is a currency

Do you even know what currency is? Or what makes for a good currency? Because information makes for a terrible currency.