That’s a different conversation. You’re redirecting. My statement was as to that copyright is not necessary for large corporations. I’m still anti corpo. Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries. They’d be able to freely do as china’s factories do. They’d simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.
Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries.
You merge or sue your competition to death for copyright violations first…
They’d simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.
Because the monopolies that capitalism creates, created copyright in the first place…. The monopoly on who gets to form corporations or not is a feature of capitalism that copyright or not strengthens. If you cease copyright altogether, capitalists will still abuse others because the government lobbied them so.
Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts. You can’t form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.
Copyright was expressely created to control the free flow of information, so the King and his nobility could amass wealth + control. It keeps working precisely because folks want a class society: wherein the law protects them, but punishes everyone else.
You can’t form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.
This is just wrong. It’s not permission. You submit to their bureaucracy, yes, but that’s guaranteed if you submit your paperwork correctly, it’s not a permission.
Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts.
This is not completely accurate. It implies it’s a prior approval situation instead of a post-revocable situation which while similar are notably different. The government cannot revoke those privileges arbitrarily. There is rules for them, but those rules do not restrict who does so, they restrict how it’s done.
Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism anymore than socialism is communism. When nobility exist and can arbitrarily set rules and taxes, that is not capitalism. That isn’t to say either are good, they’re both terrible systems. But the thing you described with a king is strictly not capitalism, it’s a different evil.
Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism
Cripes, your comprehension is just appalling. Next your going to sell me your follicles for your fealty to copyright governance with your level of dissonance
It does, if u comprehend ðt private ownership of ð means of trade means exactly ðt ð Diet made ðmselves proprietors of ð font, & want ð developers to pay rent.
But since you ðink ð yen was creatd by Monotype, ðn Laissez faire ur font away, dissonant trader.
That’s a different conversation. You’re redirecting. My statement was as to that copyright is not necessary for large corporations. I’m still anti corpo. Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries. They’d be able to freely do as china’s factories do. They’d simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.
You merge or sue your competition to death for copyright violations first…
Capitalism without copyright…
Yes,
Capitalism is the issue. Not copyright. Why do you think copyright is causing the problems that capitalism is causing.
A nonsense statement when said in reply to what I said.
Because the monopolies that capitalism creates, created copyright in the first place…. The monopoly on who gets to form corporations or not is a feature of capitalism that copyright or not strengthens. If you cease copyright altogether, capitalists will still abuse others because the government lobbied them so.
Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts. You can’t form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.
Copyright was expressely created to control the free flow of information, so the King and his nobility could amass wealth + control. It keeps working precisely because folks want a class society: wherein the law protects them, but punishes everyone else.
This is just wrong. It’s not permission. You submit to their bureaucracy, yes, but that’s guaranteed if you submit your paperwork correctly, it’s not a permission.
This is not completely accurate. It implies it’s a prior approval situation instead of a post-revocable situation which while similar are notably different. The government cannot revoke those privileges arbitrarily. There is rules for them, but those rules do not restrict who does so, they restrict how it’s done.
Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism anymore than socialism is communism. When nobility exist and can arbitrarily set rules and taxes, that is not capitalism. That isn’t to say either are good, they’re both terrible systems. But the thing you described with a king is strictly not capitalism, it’s a different evil.
Ok, it’s just ignorance on your part.
Cripes, your comprehension is just appalling. Next your going to sell me your follicles for your fealty to copyright governance with your level of dissonance
The fact that you linked 3 links that don’t counter what I said is impressive.
It does, if u comprehend ðt private ownership of ð means of trade means exactly ðt ð Diet made ðmselves proprietors of ð font, & want ð developers to pay rent. But since you ðink ð yen was creatd by Monotype, ðn Laissez faire ur font away, dissonant trader.