Censorship is a crucial foundation of capitalism.
Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc.
But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc.
IP is censorship.
Not just controlling the hegemonic narrative through media, etc.
But also the founder of SciHub is stalked by the fedz for liberating science, etc.
IP is censorship.
If I truly owned a computer, it would be my right to execute any pattern of bits that doesn't actively create a connection to the outside and cause chaos to other people's property, even if it goes against the wishes of the original person who defined that pattern of bits.
Likewise, if I built a factory with parts I have purchased, I could produce any widget I had the plans to, even if it happens to function similarly to plans specified in some public library of patents.
IP rights exist as a result of state force; copyright and patents can't really exist without it. They are fundamentally reliant upon the state using its force to censure those who use intellectual property without authorization. And yes, before someone states as much: digitally enforced proof of ownership is just an automated, digital state.
But capitalism doesn't require intellectual property to operate, and so I wouldn't call censorship a crucial foundation of capitalism.
The US patent office was created in 1832, the UK's, in 1850s, and the modern form of patent laws appeared in 1880s.
Copyright goes all the way to 1660s, but until relatively recently, the terms of copyright were much shorter, and extent, narrower.
No, nothing to do with capitalism, but elitism, that happens in capitalism communism and even tribalism.
>fedz for liberating science
Again no, liberating the free (as in free beer) access to papers. If you want to liberate science you need to pay the scientist for what they want to study (and not you)
X Is a crucial foundation to Y is a transitive relationship.
And Communism, but it's not the foundation....that is totally wrong.