Everywhere but nostr; View quoted note →

That's awful... and she's going to be replaced by AI in 18 months or less.

holy shit that's messed up

IP is a scam anyway. Spotify doing this is just shedding light on the absurdity that is IP.

You will own nothing and you will be happy.

This but unironically (with regards to intellectual “property”)

wankers 100%

She basically describing an open source license... 🤷

absolutely insane... how do they think they will get away with this?!

This can't be... If you needed another reason to dislike Spotify. 🥴 View quoted note →

No it isn't. It's a basic incentive to create most of the shit we have today.

Uhm… based? Intellectual property is a scam. Of course everyone is free to create their own version of a fictional world somebody else thought up. You’d have to violate their basic rights to prevent them from doing so.

Das ist Gaga! 🫙

Fukk EK

You VILL eat ze bugs

Wrong. Tell me why before IP ever existed did all the shit get created before? History proves your assumptions incorrect.

Almost nothing, relative to the technology we have today, existed before the industrial revolution. 1. They've existed in some form since at least 500 BCE, so you hardly have any history to support your claims, and 2. the explosion of technology and innovation happened shortly after the concept started making it into major country laws around the early 1700s. People, in general, don't just go out and create shit unless they'll benefit from it. Bitcoin miners don't mine for free. Inventors, largely, don't invent things just to get nothing from it. And they certainly don't spend money on research and development just for no reason. So get out of here with your easily debunkable communist bullshit.

BigTech is EVIL!!

Nope incorrect again. Theres clearly a postion as to why intellectual property is NOT. A defendable postion. Given below To be sure, nonscarce goods can be economized and thereby commercialized by rationing the scarce means of their distribution. For example, a professor, whose time and body are scarce, is paid to share nonscarce ideas. This is a service, but once the professor’s ideas are shared, they enter into the realm of all nonscarce goods. What is paid for in fact is not the idea itself but the presentation, the time required to share, the labor services of teaching, all of which are scarce goods.13 It is the same with a book or article. What is scarce is the medium through which the idea is expressed, which is why books, articles, and web access cost money. The ideas conveyed in them, however, are copyable without limit. This is not an insight that applies to digital media alone. This is true regardless of the technology involved. Whether we are talking about a scribe working on velum in the 8th century or a writer working on a web-based document in the 21st century, the ideas conveyed in the words, and the image of the words themselves, are nonscarce goods, while the medium through which they are conveyed is scarce. The range and importance of nonscarce goods has been vastly expanded by the existence of digital media. As to whether a good is naturally scarce or nonscarce, the test here is simple. If the good can be taken (shared) without displacing the original, it is always nonscarce. If taking the original means that it can no longer exist in the possession of the original owner or possessor, it is a scarce good. All goods fall into one or the other category. All nongoods (unwanted things, necessarily a contingent category) can of course be similarly classified.” — Jeffrey Tucker & Stephan Kinsella

Another example why your belief system of defending IP is stupidly ignorant and unattainable. Some advocates of copyright and other forms if IP try to justify IP with natural law type arguments. For example, some say that the author "creates” a work, and “thus” is entitled to own it. However, this argument begs the question by assuming that the authored work is property in the first place; once this is granted, it seems natural that the “creator” of this piece of property is the natural and proper owner of it. But “creation” does not justify ownership in things. If I homestead a farm, there need be no “creativity” involved, in the copyright sense; I need only be the first possessor of the land. On the other hand, if I carve a statue into your block of marble, I do not thereby own the resulting statue. In fact, I may owe you damages for trespass or conversion. Thus, creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership. It is scarcity that is the hallmark of ownable property, and it is by first possession that one comes to own such ownable property. This can be seen by examining the purpose and nature of property rights. Were things in infinite abundance, there would be no need for property rights. But in the real world, there are scarce resources. These things can be used and controlled by only a single person. Because of this fact of scarcity, there is always the possibility of interpersonal conflict over scarce resources. If I take your lawnmower, you no longer have it. If I take over your house and your land, you lose control of it. These tangible goods are scarce. Property rights exist to allocate ownership in scarce resources to a specified owner, thereby permitting conflicts over the use of these scarce resources to be avoided (and resolved). Thus, it is only things that are scarce, in the economic sense, that can be property. This is why, for example, there can be ownership of tangible, scarce resources such as land, cars, printing press, paper, and ink. Moreover, in the libertarian and conservative view, these property rights in scarce resources are allocated in accordance the Lockean homesteading rule, in which unowned scarce resources are homesteaded by the first possessor. The intangible “things” covered by copyright are simply not scarce, in this sense. An idea or pattern of words, for example, can be copied by others an infinite amount of times, without “taking” the idea from its originator. Unlike tangible property, several persons can use the idea at the same time, independently. If you copy my novel, I still “have” the novel, and you have it, now, too. Ideas are not scarce and are not property. As Thomas Jefferson, himself an inventor and the United States’ first Patent Examiner, wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” For this reason, copyrightable works should not be viewed as property, and copyrights should not be granted. In fact, because ideas are not property, granting property rights in them has to end up diluting the property rights accorded to actual, scarce resources.“ — Stephan Kinsella

And then ultimately rothbard destorys your line of thinking by showing us praxeologically how human flourishing and advancement could never be attained with your thinking The history of thought and ideas is a discourse carried on from generation to generation. The thinking of later ages grows out of the thinking of earlier ages. Without the aid of this stimulation intellectual progress would have been impossible. The continuity of human evolution, sowing for the offspring and harvesting on land cleared and tilled by the ancestors, manifests itself also in the history of science and ideas. We have inherited from our forefathers not only a stock of products of various orders of goods which is the source of our material wealth; we have no less inherited ideas and thoughts, theories and technologies to which our thinking owes its productivity. But thinking is always a manifestation of individuals. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p.178

And further proof for going against your line of thinking you say that nobody would do anything or create anything if they weren't getting paid for it what do you think the platform you're using is doing it is literally people just building stuff without getting paid for it