Anarchy

[Doktor Howl]

to quote the Kopyleft notice at poee.co.uk:

Copyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited
from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not
the individual artist.

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade's work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris' sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should
certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are
dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property,
especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this
is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of
campaign contributions.

Property is property.  If I as an artist sell my property to a corporation, then they own it, just as if I'd sold a car.  If I sign a contract that rips me a new ass, I should learn to read what I sign.

[AFK]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.  It is also much harder to qualify.  Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law.  Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.

Also, your evidence that creativity has ended or declined since 1790?  Thanks.

Yes, I'm interested to hear that as well. 

[Doktor Howl]

So?  We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.  

Fuck rights and law.  We can just chuck those out the window so "anarchists" can download free music.

Property means nothing, your work is valueless, and you should spend all those hours practicing your instrument and writing lyrics just for the fucking joy of it, and so some pimple-faced shits can swipe it "share" it.

And THAT is what anarchy is all about.  Personal gratification at any cost.

[AFK]

Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain?  Who does that hurt?  I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?  

Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.

First, that assumes that it would not have been available to our culture had it been under copyright control.  
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.  

[Doktor Howl]

 
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.  

They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it. 

[Don Coyote]

 
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.  

They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it. 

And depend on the kindness of others to toss them loose change and scraps of food to survive.

[AFK]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.  It is also much harder to qualify.  Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law.  Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.

Um, yeah, you kinda need the force of law to hand down houses too.  That's part of the mountain of paperwork you have to fill out when you buy a home, or when you do your will.  If you don't fill out that paperwork, your house doesn't magically go to your next of kin.  

[Doktor Howl]

 
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.  

They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it. 

And depend on the kindness of others to toss them loose change and scraps of food to survive.

Sure.  But they had better still record shit for me to steal.  I will not tolerate having to wait for the local buskers to play the songs I like.

[Doktor Howl]

Physical objects and intellectual property are different. 

In what way?  Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.

Intellectual property is easier to replicate.  It is also much harder to qualify.  Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law.  Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.

Um, yeah, you kinda need the force of law to hand down houses too.  That's part of the mountain of paperwork you have to fill out when you buy a home, or when you do your will.  If you don't fill out that paperwork, your house doesn't magically go to your next of kin.  

It shouldn't.  It should go to deserving anarchist communes.   

[AFK]

Well I suppose that would have worked out better for Randy Quaid.  

"Nobody owns the homes man!  You're just trying to repress my nomadic creativity!"

[Doktor Howl]

Well I suppose that would have worked out better for Randy Quaid.   

Also, your boss should have the option of paying you each week, instead of the requirement.

[AFK]

Well that would be a fun game wouldn't it?

"Uhh, sorry honey, I guess it's bread and water again this week!"

[Freeky]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

[Doktor Howl]

Well that would be a fun game wouldn't it?

"Uhh, sorry honey, I guess it's bread and water again this week!"

Well, if artists aren't worth their pay, who is?

[Doktor Howl]

For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.

Obviously.

But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.