Did anybody else notice that across the last year or so...

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

I see what you mean but if it were a thousand years ago and I saw a painting, I would still say "user, what do you think about this original piece?"

>dude, things that can be easily copied using common, every day tools - or even less - your mind alone should totally be treated like property imitation punished worse than assault.

>Comrade, the state should prohibit the use of ideas that it disagrees with because it suits me.

>>>Holla Forums

Hey, how about I walk into your homes and steal your computers? I mean, you can easily just build a new one if you buy the parts and spend hours assembling them. You have no rights to be offended by this or to pursue legal action, because computers should be free, maaaaaaaan.

>>>Holla Forums

If it doesn't suffer from scarcity and can be infinitely replicated without noticeable cost why shouldn't it be free?

If you buy something and sign a contract saying you won't copy and distribute it, thats a whole other deal.

Excuse me sir, but you might not be aware that the phrase "computers should be free, maaaaaaaan" is registered property of DisnEA Inc, along with any derivatives, paraphrases and soundalikes, as stated by the International Copyright Agreement of 2016.
You usage of this phrase is unauthorized, and so you will be billed 20 000$ + additional charges.
Not complying will result in incarceration.

>>>/hell/

You are free to copy the design of my computers, I'll gladly even give you a list of every component and you can build your own.

If something can be copied for free, then it is a moral imperative to copy it and share it with anyone who may need it.

Imaginary Property is a government-enforced monopoly that steals from the common good to the profit of (((parasites))). It is anathema to freedom of speech and to a free-market economy.

If an idea is property it can be bought and sold. Soon everything will be commercialised. Capitalism is reaching a climax of insanity. They are scared people will start to see through the wool so this is an attempt to normalize the madness

Am on the periphery of a bit of indi gaming. We call any bit of created content an 'asset' a doodle is not a doodle its an art asset. A rift is not a rift its a musical asset. Everything is a fucking asset.

Is it 'let a retard use the internet day' or something?

Do you think that if someone writes an astonishing 1500-page novel, that should be free to the world and they should receive no financial reimbursement for their efforts?

Do you think that if someone sinks hundreds of hours into creating their own comic and finds a willing publisher or self-publishes out of their own pocket, that should be free too?

Do you think if someone spends thousands of hours coding a videogame, that should be free?

Get the fuck out of here and never come back.

Someone wants to trademark the city name "Park City" so no one else can use the city name in there business.

vaildaily.com/news/22072724-113/vail-resorts-seeks-to-trademark-park-city

i don't see why you'd include my post, while similar if you created a piece of art is it not yours? Comparing something from the art industry to building your computer or just story ideas in general does not equate.

I even agreed that what you're proposing is shit as well.

Are you for real nigger?

You have not the slightest clue what communism is.

No one is forcing you to write a novel, drawing a comic or coding a video game. If you choose to do something that can be trivially copied for little or no cost don't expect any sympathy from us if someone copies it.

Imaginary Property does not exist in a free market, it only exists by the coercion of the State.

Tell that to a judge when you try to make a new Super Mario game and Nintendo sues you into a oblivion.

You don't known what the fuck you are talking about please shut the fuck up forever.

Please shut the fuck up forever. Never return to this place.

Are you really so politically and historically illiterate that you think communism is reducible to "a system where stuff is free and people don't get paid"?

Also, despite such a system being a) stupid and b) not communism, I have to point out that in a system in which things were free, not getting paid wouldn't matter quite so much, would it.

What a load of bullshit. The original, more or less fair, bargain was that a copyright holder would retain exclusive right for a period of 14 years.

Now you jackasses get copyright for literally centuries and you're still whining that you don't get enough. If you Jews had it your way we'd be paying kikes licenses to print bibles.

Go fuck yourself.

Are you so autistic that you take everything everyone says word for word literally?

Those things are the effect of a communist system, but not the exact literal definition you fucking sperglord.

Oh, the classic "I didn't mean it literally". Short-hand for "I was wrong" usually. Thanks for acknowledging it.

Usually. But not today you fucking retard.

Brah the jews own copy rights on most modern english translations of the bible.
KJV is the only popular version with out copyright.

Where do you think you are? You might as well start saying Marx had some good ideas but they just haven't been tried properly.

are you a woman?

You can own a physical object. I cannot morally steal that physical object from you. If I decide to make myself a copy of that physical object, I have not harmed you in any way, and thus I have acted morally.

The same applies for non-physical entities. It does not deprive you of anything if I duplicate a non-physical entity.

I don't owe anyone anything just because they happened to be the first person to make something resembling a particular abstract concept.

The only communist bullshit here is claiming that the government has a right to control what information I am allowed to possess, justified by a bastardization of property rights.

IPs are a big deal now

We're getting closer and closer to a lot of IPs going into public domain and a lot of bergs don't like that idea
It's hilarious to watch them push the limit of idea ownership more and more
Of course the group at the forefront of this is Disney

Are you a nigger?

more like autist. gas yourself.

You can't own an idea because ideas aren't quantitative objectively measurable items. If I 'steal' your idea you still have it, therefore it can't be theft

So how do I get other faggots to not steal my work and sell it as their own if I don't acknowledge intellectual property?

If I make liek gaim and sell it. Is someone else justified in making profit off of that??

This is a legitimate question here. How do I safe guard my creation? If I wrote Game of Thrones. How do I safe guard Game of Thrones? Isn't it unfair for someone else who didn't have shit to do with Game of Thrones starts profiting from it substantially without permission?

Like I'm really confused here.

Poor effort, nobody said that.

Just accept that there is nothing communist about opposing IP, its an attempt to turn ideas into shekels, and increasingly the internet makes all this copyright law look increasingly ridiculous and outdated. As correctly points out, it is copied and thus nothing is lost from the original, it is not theft in the true sense.

With enough money someone could buy the most valuable piece of art in history. No man-made object is without price.

That just sounds like idiots misusing or overusing a term to sound smart.

Is this a stealth piracy divide and conquer thread? Am I being rused?

Again, try to make a super mario game and sell it, and see how ti goes for you.

Of course no one else has a right to profit from it. If the rule applies to you it applies to them too. Your confusion is correct: IP highlights the contradictory nature of the concept of owning an idea, owning something that can't be stolen or taken away, only shared.

Lol, people disagreeing in a thread does not necessarily mean d&c is going on at all, I think we just disagree.

But you are fucking wrong and you are fucking ignoring my goddamn examples.

If you arent a shill then you are an idiot.

Address my examples you fuckwit.

Adapt or die.
Bands make their money by going on tour and doing live events. Also it looks like there is starting to be small growth in selling special physical media like vinyl and cassette.

No one is going to pay 99cents a track for iTunes when you can download the whole album for free from 100 different sources.

You cant force the old models anymore in age of GigE internet. Today you have to find a way to bring value to the consumer if you want to make money. Just owning the copyright isn't enough anymore.

whole bunch of words out there that trigger me
worst part is, the social engineering starts with kindergarten.
isn't this brainwashing 101? associate a word with positivity or negativity enough, and soon a single word will elicit a strong emotional response which causes people to abandon reason and lose grasp on reality?
division
to endure pain
novelty argument "it's old, therefore bad"
what happened to thinking? why do feelings validate a stance, and not facts or reason (or there lack of)?
stand alone slur
no not literally
bad feelings
it's a problem and i don't have to explain why

Are you suggesting I make a Mario game and report back right now…?

When you want to communicate with women, using I feel instead of I think is great for relating to them. Both is a stronger word and puts you in an emotion focused state which is what women focus on in communication. Has no place in debate though.

I started using it on my own because I had to start calling shit "IP" because the kikes in charge of media are always squabbling with one another over who owns what. It was easier to argue and talk about shit by pre-emptively making it clear what iteration of Star Wars or Spiderman I was talking about.

I don't really see a newspeak conspiracy behind this. It's just language shifting organically while kikes kike about kvetching amongst themselves over who owns what specifically.

I was just thinking about this today. If ((they)) own the "intellectual property" then they own the most popular form of a piece of culture.

in a purely economic sense, yes.
try explaining why Michelangelo's David is valuable to society and should be appreciated though.
100% sure money will not factor into that equation.

Books are not an apt comparison to make in any case because before the printing press, nobody cared if you copied a book. It was hard work. Copyright used to be an author's safeguard from their publisher, but has now turned into a weapon of unjust power that the publisher wields against the consumer. It is now trivially easy to copy a book and share its knowledge, which is obviously a big problem for stockholders and publishers.

Very interesting post. So it seems the only ones benefitting from IP laws really are not the artists or theorists themselves but the "big money" behind it all.

Bump

Not who you were responding too, but that's very true. I think there should be separate laws for art and patent copyright, because comparing entertainment to scientific research is dumb, but my education was in music copyright so that's the frame of reference I understand.

Most artists end up signing their IP away to a firm or a label or something, and in the process they lose a degree of legal control over it. When you see copyright kikery in the news, it's almost never the artist responsible, it's their manager (sometimes at the behest of their (usually jewish) client, but usually not), because he controls the material as part of their contract.

Like any other industry, entertainment is under the thumb of the you-know-whos. They're the ones lobbying for the extension of copyright protection (last I checked it's 70 years after the creator's death, which we can all agree is completely unreasonable and very jewish), and the ones who get thingy about enforcing it, because it's free shekels. In the music industry, for example, all labels end up tracing back to one of 4 big names - Sony, EMI, Warner Bros, or Universal. They are the jews of that industry and they don't treat it as a cultural device, they never have, it's just shekels, and they wield their influence to maximise the shekels as they always do.

Personally I believe the original term of Copyright is decent - 10 to 15 years or so is enough time for an intelligent person to profiteer from a good idea, while still enabling culture to thrive. I believe artists should retain a degree of control over their labor as incentive to produce quality and to maintain an industry around it, but as it stands, the kikery is completely out of control. Stripping copyright terms back may help fight that, but good luck competing with the top of the pyramid with that shit.

Enlightening post, thanks. What are your views on the concept of copyrighting genetic material, as some GM crop producers are talking about? Seems like the ultimate low; getting shekels out of living DNA

I don't know too much about it. On a gut feeling, copyrighting genetics seems like a dangerous precedent.

Is the idea that the GM manufacturers hold copyright over a particular strain?

yeah it wouldn't surprise me at all.
it's like the word "hate" got seeded into the vernacular with it's newmeaning of: "disagreement with the narrative"
I think (((they))) have huge teams of pr people working around the clock figuring out new ways to jew us with words.

Basically yes, so if they get copyright over say, the best version of a potato, then all potatoes in that strain belong to them. It effectively creates monopolies, as all other producers must therefore only produce inferior potatoes, or leave the market entirely. Any further improvement would require either payment, or starting from scratch. It makes it almost impossible to build on existing research

So there definitely is a push then? Since you are here shilling that there isn't anything to worry about.

You can make money from everything you create. Just don't shit all over your fans. It is best to promote an environment where everyone feels like they should support those who create content they love.

I do not utilize DRM, I don't go after my fans, hell if someone has issues with an app store, I just give them the game for free. I've had people come to my forum saying they love my game, pirated it, and need help because they are stuck. I help them and just tell them to add a review to a site if they like the game. They pay me back by defending me on review sites and forums. You want people who will want to support you.

But if you create a thing, it's yours. This includes writing a book. The only people who argue otherwise are (((libertarians))) who subscribe to (((Rothbard)))'s definition of property. You're not a (((libertarian))), right?

Opposition to Intellectual Property largely stems from uncreative kikes who wish to steal the art the White Man makes and resell it for their own profit while the White writer/artist/composer goes penniless.

(((Libertarians))) will quibble over the definition of creation and try to argue that a work of art, a story, a song, etc, is just an idea and so nobody can own it. The answer to this of course is to do what Trump would do and prosecute such kikes to the maximum possible extent under the law.

As other anons said, adapt or die.

If your novel is good, people will support it. If your comic is good, ditto. Same for vidya.

The market share of people that pirate without paying is a market share you were NEVER going to win. They'd just find something else.

Good try kike.

THIS thing. Not every other goddamn atom in the universe.

IP is just pushed by worthless men hoping to live off the work of everyone else.

Opposition to IP comes from "uncreative kikes"? That's literally the opposite of what everyone else in this thread seems to agree on…

I only use the term IP to describe a concept exclusively designed for developing/advancing a franchise for profit.

"They're working on a new IP instead of rehashing their usual one" or "The game would have worked better as a new IP".

It's an acknowledgement that it's all about soulless formulas and marketing. I guess IP should really mean "Immediate Profiteering".

but if an idea becomes a product, wouldn't it mean unpopular ideas could be barred from the market using court justice marking some ideas as fouplay as regulated by the state?

for example paid mods.

is mods became paid intelectual properties, some mods would have no plataform whatsoever because nexus, steam, and the game maker website would bar those mods.

pic related for example, I saw a fellow modder make a HUGE mod with almost 500mb of assets, but because of this pic related I saw him get ostracized and his work banned on Leddit. my fear is that if this was a court matter, he would also probably get arrested for being a bad goyim. and that would be a problem.

The bigger problem of paid mods is that the modding community shares code and assets with each other to elaborate/improve their mods. That will be impossible due to the copyright minefield that will generate.

As a result the modding community would eventually be monopolized by a select few; who can monetize on both customers and other modders modifying their work. Then the developers and publishers acquire a majority share of the profit and have the power to control the whole modding community as cheap labor.

TL;DR: It turns modding into developer outsourcing.

Actual creators of original content can assert copyright. Jew content distribution companies can go suck rocks, as all they do is steal from and exploit those that create. This is why the Merchant class was historically at the bottom of the hierarchy. All they do is take, and distort.

youtube.com/watch?v=gBdOMrK28EA

What do you think?

Psyop for TPP?

Kill yourself, art is worth jack shit, less than dirt, when puke on a canvas and a woman shooting paintballs from her twat on a white tarp is now considered art. Art is supposed to be a form of expression or entertainment, not a lucrative avenue. You can use art to influence minds, to represent your emotions or even let off some steam but thinking it has any inherent monetary value is being retarded. Any and every art should become public domain as soon as it's released, only kikes think expression should be put behind paywalls.

I forgot to add that having means to receive donations after you produced such art is a good thing, so should at least mentioning the artists of whatever you put out be common courtesy. Still, artists who whine and go passive aggressive because they didn't get paid for their shitty stuff by itself can burn for all I care.

jews