Somebody would take your car if there wasn't any cops to intervene. And your food. Government enforcing the law that I can't take your stuff doesn't mean that government invented the stuff.
You give government far too much credit. Al Gore may have invented the internet, but government did not invent clothes and food and houses - protecting your stuff doesn't mean they invented it.
For some reason, if you spent a week in an preschool you will hear the cry "he copied me!". Always in an upset tone. The fact is,
Yet, it has always been the publishers (stationers way back) who have pushed for copyright, so they can pay an artist a pittance and then profit for as long as possible. About the beginning of the 18th century they discovered the best argument was that "it was for the artists" as they pushed for infinite copyright on the works that they controlled. Today, in this article, we see the same thing, the publisher ripping off the artist and people like you who think it is for the artist. Today there are still a couple of artistic ventures without copyright such as the fashion industry. They just have to stay creative to stay profitable.
The Macys stores in Seattle did a hilarious thing a few years ago, they displayed Ivanka Trump knockoff clothes on the rack next to the (IIRC) Donna Karan originals. Identical right down to the stitching on the hem.
She owned the company and put her name on stuff under the absurd assumption that it increased the saleability, she couldn't design her way out of her office door.
Capitalism is a good tool, nothing more. (Score:5, Insightful)
The end result of unfettered capitalism is wealthy organisations eating everything and everyone else.
The power of wealth must be reigned in.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
Weird that you blame "capitalism" for an unnatural right to imaginary property invented by the government.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird that you blame "capitalism" for an unnatural right to imaginary property invented by the government.
It wasn't invented by the government, it is just enforced by it (after sufficient lobbying efforts)
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
It wasn't invented by the government, it is just enforced by it
Are you seriously claiming that, in the absence of government, authors would have no problem being compensated for their work?
Copyrights, patents, and trademarks exist only because governments say that they do.
Government invented cars and food? (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody would take your car if there wasn't any cops to intervene. And your food. Government enforcing the law that I can't take your stuff doesn't mean that government invented the stuff.
You give government far too much credit. Al Gore may have invented the internet, but government did not invent clothes and food and houses - protecting your stuff doesn't mean they invented it.
For some reason, if you spent a week in an preschool you will hear the cry "he copied me!". Always in an upset tone. The fact is,
Re:Government invented cars and food? (Score:3)
Yet, it has always been the publishers (stationers way back) who have pushed for copyright, so they can pay an artist a pittance and then profit for as long as possible. About the beginning of the 18th century they discovered the best argument was that "it was for the artists" as they pushed for infinite copyright on the works that they controlled. Today, in this article, we see the same thing, the publisher ripping off the artist and people like you who think it is for the artist.
Today there are still a couple of artistic ventures without copyright such as the fashion industry. They just have to stay creative to stay profitable.
Re: (Score:3)
such as the fashion industry
The Macys stores in Seattle did a hilarious thing a few years ago, they displayed Ivanka Trump knockoff clothes on the rack next to the (IIRC) Donna Karan originals. Identical right down to the stitching on the hem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's still trademark law, so I doubt they had the same label. Besides, does Ivanka design clothes or just lend her name?
Re: (Score:2)
She owned the company and put her name on stuff under the absurd assumption that it increased the saleability, she couldn't design her way out of her office door.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems good, those who want to support her can pay too much for hers or pay a realistic price for basically the same thing.
Re: Government invented cars and food? (Score:2)
What if the brand was bought out? Seems perfectly legal to me in that case: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]