![you-wouldnt-download-a-car-1-728[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8GBopUG.jpg "you-wouldnt-download-a-car-1-728[1].jpg")
Let's talk intellectual property, /his/.
Does intellectual property actually exist? Or is it purely an economic incentive to inventors and creatives? Should creating an idea actually give you any intrinsic control over how that idea is used?
Put another way, if you ignore the law, Is it ethically permissible to infringe on another's copyright?
Since I have to use google to find my car manual, I actually do download a car. Having a car and not using a car is not having a car. Having a car and using a car is having a car.
>Does intellectual property actually exist?
Nothing exists.
>Should creating an idea actually give you any intrinsic control over how that idea is used?
No one has any control over ideas.
>Put another way, if you ignore the law, Is it ethically permissible to infringe on another's copyright?
Everything is "permissible".
>>1341908
>does intellectual property actually exist?
No, it's a neoliberal fantasy
ONTOPIC INTERESTING ESSAY:
http://www.contemplationem.com/publications/20141001.html
>>1341908
It sort of exists as an idea and an economic incentive. However, from its history and how it is implemented today, it exists as a horribly fascist system that wrests control from the creator to corporations for mere pittances, if compensation is even given at all.
You can't really ignore it, for it would mean a whole lot of pissed off creative types entering the workforce for less than minimum wage. Also professors who now have to work like dogs to have a decent living wage.
What I'm trying to say is, no, it's still not ethically permissible to infringe on someone's copyright because of the "don't be a dick" principle.
Not much reason to care about innovation when you aren't going to get credit for it. Likewise without it there would be even more derivatives then there already is.
The questions of who really owns what that's the problem. How much of your work can be altered before it becomes something that can't be classified as your work, and until we answer that stupidly complex question, we're goinna have issues.
>>1341908
The problem with intellectual property is that it is longer-lasting(internationally) than fucking patents are. Patents last, I think 15 years, copyrights last 99.
The family of the man who composed "Jingle Bells" currently has no single member that worked a day in their life or earned any money in any way(for example as an investor). They campaign for lengthening the protection period for copyrights because in like 5 or 6 generation they may finally run out of money the licensing earned.
In general intellectual property is protected more intensively than fucking inventions or products, almost like the legislation around the latter was consulted with people who had "encouraging creativity and giving economic incentive to invest in R&D" in mind(so the period isn't extraordinary long because after some time it starts discouraging said incentives and creativity) while for the former it was written with "gibe me endless stream of money from licensing nao" as a major intention.
>>1341932
>Being this edgy.
no property actually exists, it's literally a meme
