This just sounds like your opinion, why do you think this? I really like that people can profitably write books and make movies and I think some force to allow that to happen seems reasonable.
I am defining force as literal force. What theft can occur without physically touching the thing being stolen?
I didn’t duck the question. I answered it. I even answered it before it was asked (minus the irrelevant comment about identity fraud) - I’m against IP. Copy whatever you want.
This is like saying you work 24-7 because breathing involves physical motion. Insisting on ur personal definitions of well-understood terms while disregarding how everyone else uses them is childish. But even if we use this, ah, special definition, legal remedies in tort cases typically don't involve force. You get a judgement of liability from the court, and and are ordered to write a check. You can complain about government force, but by your criteria your injury is wholly imaginary.
Meanwhile it seems clear that you do not consider that authors of creative works to have any rights whatsoever in their output. I hear this a lot from people with no creative abilities of their own.
Yes, we've already established that you don't get the rights to pixels, sounds and ideas, and my creative abilities won't change that.
Yes, we've already established that you don't get the rights to pixels, sounds and ideas
We've established that that's what you want, and that you're unwilling to even acknowledge the concept of authorship. Your efforts at rhetorical browbeating are clumsy at best.
That's right, I do not want people to own pixels, sounds and ideas. I don't acknowledge the concept of ownership of something that isn't property. Problem?
(Regardless, a “solution” to the problem of copyright that destroys people’s ability to profitably write books or make movies seems silly to me)
(1) Lying is bad.
(2) Lying and "collecting money from anyone you can trick" is fraud.
(3) Fraud is illegal, and that has nothing to do with copyright.
You are massively straw-manning here.
GP is arguing against any sort of IP rights, so these questions are reasonable. Lying isn't illegal, if there are no IP rights in a created work then anyone can legally claim authorship.
It is fraud.
What is so hard about this?
I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it from you personally. You believe in IP when it comes to stopping AI but not when it prevents you from pirating, agree or disagree? If I don’t get a one word answer I’ll answer for you.
I never pirate software and no, I dont think piracy is a good idea either. I believe in open source and that human knowledge should he free in the sense of librem but i equally believe that that should be according to terms and conditions. So i, as a human, would like to read and understand your idea but if you dont wish to grant me the right to monetise it - sure.
> The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea.
Wouldn't that suggest that at the point in time where we move past IP we are _also_ progressing to a new stage in humanity?