[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

!@#$! the flaw in your argument is that copyrights don't create a market, indeed they are the product of government regulation and have their root in the feudal guilds and craft licensing that the American colonists so despised

markets are based on rules-- like a game.

to begin: there are no markets without the rule of property-- this is mine, this is yours, therefore we can exchange. otherwise, everybody grabs what they want and soon there's nothing left.

when intellectual products are property, they are also exchangeable.

if intellectual products were a free-for-all, nobody would need to trade them, they coudl just grab them, but then a lot of people would cease to produce them. why slave away at the lab for nothing?

copyrights, which are a form of intellectual proprty, are created by law (a rule) which says that only the creator of a work has the right to copy, distrubute, etc-- their creative works.

there is nothing in nature that says this needs to be. it's a legal construct. and it enables a social activity (a market).

without that rule, i could take rob's lou reed picture, put it on a t-shirt, and sell millions of them, and not pay rob a singel red cent.

but because there is that rule, i have to BUY permission from rob if i want to use his work. i may buy it outright, license it, pay a royalty, etc-- there are many ways.

watch "shark tank" some time to see how this shit operates in practice. the show is full of obnoxious egomaniacs swinging their cocks, but for the most part they're there to buy ideas and/or trademarks. without the rule of intellectual property, nobody would show up because the sharks would just steal the idea.
"i have invented a process to make circus peanust from rocks"
"great, thanks, now i'll go make millions from that, you can fuck off."

it's really that basic.