property is a way to handle distribution of scarce goods. When you hear someone talking about the capitalist fiction of intellectual "property", about ideas that can be infinitely copied where scarcity is literally impossible, you've found someone who doesn't understand property at all. "Intellectual property" is attempting to seal off an infinite lake so you can sell bottled water.
Note however that the exact same reasoning apply to personal data. Which is interesting because probably we should find an unified and uniform way to regulate all informations and their representations (eg data or programs).
@beebs yeah "intellectual property" matters when artists can't get food and housing and literally no other time
@chillgamesh @beebs even then i would argue a much more successful / fruitful endeavor would be to push for housing and food rather than pushing for inclusion in an inherently exclusionary and exploitative system
like, imagine you strengthen ip rights for poor artists or whatever. congrats you've solved nothing, they're still starving bc they can't reasonably compete with the corporate entertainment industry! time is a limited resource! attention economy stuff clearly doesn't work
@trwnh @beebs of course we need universal housing and food; doesn't mean it isn't still worthwhile to always share art with the artist's name and site attached, and spread around knowledge about which companies (coughdeviantartcough) will steal your work, all of that. We still have to survive under capitalism until we build other means of meeting our collective needs.
@garbados @chillgamesh @beebs yeah also mutual aid is more effective, like, you could crowdfund or do patronage and that's vastly more productive than attempting to sell your creative works on a small scale. the fundamental problem is attempting to claim payment *after* the labor is performed and *without* a contract guaranteeing payment.
@garbados @chillgamesh @beebs i guess with regards to citation and credit, the only contract is a social one that tells you to maintain the source tree, or at the very least not strip that info? but you still can't own the idea itself, you're just the person who expressed it at that point in time. the idea is part of nature, just like math can be used to express every single possible piece of information ever in a binary sequence. in that sense intellectual property is as abhorrent as plagiarism
I agree, but I think "kill IP" is largely something we can't just convince humanity to do in one fell swoop
they've been lied to by rich people all their life that "IP protects everybody", and people buy that lie, as if somehow they're going to design the perfectly tweaked whateverthing and then they're set for life
it's lottery thinking and it's caused by IP, but really, I think the best I'll see in my lifetime is a cutback to "creator life + 20 years for non-creators", maybe
@beebs Property is theft.
@aemon "Is the concept 'theft' at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept 'property'? How can one steal if property is not already extant? ... Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property."
A silly instance of Mastodon for queer folk and non-queer folk alike. Let's be friends!