It's not ridiculous, that's the deal (at least it was). It's not actual property. It's a made up concept, you actually lose nothing physical if it's copied. That concept was created and granted to encourage people to create.

You get a certain period to commercialize it, then it's public property. Hiding it away to prevent that is a breach of the spirit of the agreement society made with the creator.

That you believe it's a "ridiculous" argument shows how much you've been brainwashed by corporations.

All this stuff is generally built on the shoulders of previous works, that are public domain. Copying story structures, phrasing, etc. Even entire storylines.

And that's before we get onto the fact that all these corporations benefited from eveything we paid for. Laws to protect their IP, enforcement, infrastructure paid with by public money, education of workers, etc..

They've got their hands out to take, take, take, but when it comes to holding up to their part of the bargain, it's suddenly extensions on copyright terms, minor tweaks to "renew" IP that was never part of the original deal, etc. while feeding a ton of cash to politicians in what looks like a bribe, acts like a bribe, but is termed "lobbying".

▲

nkrisc 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Physical property rights are made up too. How can you claim to own something if you aren’t actively defending it nor physically possessing it in that moment.

Do you “own” your house even when you’re not home? Yes, you do, because we all agreed on this made up thing called “property rights” and we pay our tax dollars to have it enforced. Otherwise whoever is in your house “owns” it until you or someone else forcible removes them or convinces them to leave.

All our rules are “made up”.

▲

navane 4 days ago | parent [-]

Nuance beaten by a strawman. Well done.

You know what, your words are all made up.

	▲	lovich 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		The guy just laid out the beginning of Georgist philosophy. This is not a made up out of the air concept

▲

charcircuit 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>It's a made up concept

Physical property is made up too. You don't lose anything from someone sleeping on your couch either.

▲

yrxuthst 4 days ago | parent [-]

If someone is sleeping on your couch, then you lose the ability to sleep on it yourself, because they are taking up the space.

▲

charcircuit 4 days ago | parent [-]

Well then they can sleep in your bed if you want the couch or someone else in your home you aren't using.

▲

c22 4 days ago | parent [-]

But then how do we determine who has priority for the couch? The singleton nature of the couch requires some form of access control to prevent disputes. No such restriction exists for a memory of the couch, once we have each been exposed to it we can enjoy the memory perpetually and simultaneously with no conflicts.

Artificially restricting what can be remembered and by whom solely on the basis that some forms of memory produce new physical artifacts ("copies") is absurd on its face.

That said, the ability to monetize a memory is much more like the couch. In theory this is the resource copyright aims to protect. In practice, experts disagree to what extent piracy impacts potential monetization leaving us with two sides of the debate tending to talk past eachother.

▲

nkrisc 4 days ago | parent [-]

If someone else is sleeping on it, it’s not your couch until you remove them from it and occupy it yourself.

Unless we agree upon the abstract concept of “owning” property even while you do not physically possess it.

You need look no father than a kindergarten to see the natural way of things: the toy belongs to whichever toddler is holding it.

While not entirely comparable, it is no more absurd to extend the idea to intangible ideas as well.

	▲	lovich 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The discussion was started on IP law, you have to agree on abstract concepts of ownership as a bedrock of the entire system since you can’t physically be in possession of an idea. If you need to bring us down to kindergarten or toddler level for us to no longer need to come to an agreement on the definition of ownership, I’m not sure there’s much more to discuss
	▲	c22 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, a simple lock (in the concurrent software sense) is one system that could work. Harking back to my own kindergarten experience, though, I am not sure if such a system is best for minimizing disputes.