What would you be paid for if there is no profit to be derived from your labor?
you charge for your labor before doing the work like every other profession that exists. If a lawyer did a bunch of work for free and then demanded after that he get paid after delivering the results to the client, he'd be laughed out of the room for it. Is it really so hard to just not do something you're not paid to do?
Independent film makers had their careers ruined during the 2000s when their films were leaked to the public via torrents. Crytek, Epic Games, Shrapnel Games and Looking Glass Studios were all PC game developers that either had to move away from PC to walled-garden console releases or shut down entirely due to piracy. Piracy hurts small, independent operations the most, not large companies.
rather big or small, hedging your financial bet on people not using computers to copy shit is downright retarded. Their failed business model are not my problem in the same way that every other failed business model isn't my problem, they don't deserve the right to restrict what I do with my hardware because they don't know how to make money. If they can't find a way to charge for their labor, they need to be out of the market.
You can say goodbye to physical media or livestreaming, film would become a movie theater concept only again. They would do everything possible to make it a walled garden experience.
I don't care about physical media or live streaming? Physical media is a meme propped up by uneducated idiots who don't think that a file on your computer can be as persistent as a file burned to a disk. Live streaming is not something I really care about or engage with? Is that the best you have for keeping the legal right to destroy someone's life for distributing pixels, remixing others work, and profiteering off both?
Even if movies went into theaters only, that's not really all that bad honestly. Band shows do live concerts as a service and charge for attendance and it works. Also, anyone would be able to make their own version of any movie since copyright is gone so I can just follow someone who does kickstarters (read: asking for pay up front) for their drops.
I don't see how store looting or border crossing or breaking and entering are a problem either.
store looting deprives people of physical goods, If i steal bread from a baker the baker no longer has bread. If I could make a copy of the bread without any cost both of us would have bread. There's no theft here.
Border crossing is an issue of governments keeping sovereignty over their borders for their citizens, its moreso a right the government has than the people. It keeps them exclusively in control over the monopoly of violence for the state to function. If it was gone, the sovereignty of governments would fail, meaning no contract law, no property right protection, etc.
breaking and entering literally implies breaking something which like the store looting, deprives someone of property. Entering is less heinous, but since tangible real estate is scarce and someone currently occupying it means someone else can't do so, we permit people to kick people off their property as part of the whole property rights schema we have to deal with scarcity.
really, you're making false comparisons here, I don't know what your point even is. The only thing that copyright and patent holders lose is the ability to legally terrorize and threaten others out of competition with them. This kind of system is not present in any other form of property law and is by nature anti-competition in the market. This is mostly because copyright and patents, unlike physical property, are simply not scarce and thus do not need property rights applied to them. This is especially the case now since copying is practically free.
So was the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Nineteenth, so on and so forth.
no? You can be critical of the constitution and not hate many of the good parts? I hate the commerce clause of the constitution because its poorly wrote and gives the federal government a lot of leeway to regulate things, but that doesn't mean I hate the core right-protecting amendments. What even is this argument?
It's tangible because guilds predate copyright, you didn't notice that copyright was bolted onto guilds when it was first invented? Why would anyone use a guild to enforce copyright measures... unless it was already fit for purpose?
Alright, sounds like the guild system was bad then, so fair enough on that.
Copyright is about more than simple copying, you know that but pretend otherwise.
Yes, its about the government granting a monopoly to someone on information and giving them the right to sue someone into the ground for violating that monopoly by procuring, distributing, marketing, modifying, or otherwise interacting with the information in a unapproved way with limited exception.
how?
Oh, so a form of intellectual property protection is good now?
trademark is a fundamentally different concept than patents and copyright and gets lumped the discussion for no reason.
The FSF wrote an entire article on this exact subject, I suggest reading it.
It stops the proliferation of inferior knockoff products masquerading as the genuine article, which protects the customers.
No, that's not its purpose and never was. That's trademark law and anti-fraud law's purpose. Giving direct citation for the constitutional wording that creates copyright and patents:
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm
"The Congress shall have Power To [...] promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
These laws explicit purpose is purely an incentive scheme. It's an incentive scheme from a dated era that is no longer relevant to our own as publishing is not as expensive and artisans, scientists, and other creators can just charge for the labor of their work rather than being granted a monopoly. Patent and copyright law have nothing to do with anti-counterfeiting measures. It's why, in principle, I understand why trademark exists (even if I disagree with the specifics of its current implementation): mandated consumer information through government enforced exclusivity in certain forms of branding is the anti-fraud mechanism.
