Negative. I am proposing that walmart protect their assets. And that software companies protect their assets, without government protectionist measures which disrupt market activity and growth.
Dude what exactly is wrong with you? lol
nice conflation
Reading comprehension man…
That’s exactly what a copyright agreement does.
I don’t know what that means.
You seem upset that software is so easily manufactured and as such it’s scarcity is subject to explode. Perhaps it is you who would like to break economic laws not me?
I work in software. I assure you it is not easily made. It is easily copied.
Negative again. That would be like me buying a couch at walmart, than walmart having me sign an agreement on who I could re-sell the count to and who could sit on it.
Walmart doesn’t work that way however.
So you prefer to employ fascistic measures to insure your paycheck? Look its your fault you chose to go into an industry that takes no effort to manufacture and reproduce. Not ours.
it means i mispelt ‘assurance’
Still don’t know what that means.
One way you can easily identify a communist is that they always denounce anyone who disagrees with them as a fascist, demonstrating both their lack of an argument and an amusingly poor scholarship of fascism.
They have this arguement in Against Intellectual Property. If you read the book you’ll understand.
So someone who advocates stateside protectionism isn’t advocating fascistic measures? And a capitalist who points this out is a communist? Explain that coherently or are you just tossing in more garbage on the fire?
No.
Do you mind naming any innovation from, say, microsoft ? GUIs ? They didn’t invent them. Internet browsers ? They didn’t invent those either. Word processors, same thing. Email ? Open gl ? Cad ? Midi ? Hell, they never manage to even create a stable OS…
The anti information as property group has a couple of issues they can not address.
First, you claim that information is not property and is only treated as property because of government intervention. What this doesn’t explain is why the marketplace in the absence of government intervention treats information as property. How do you propose to force the marketplace to stop treating information as property?
Second because of your inability to answer the first question there are a series of what if scenarios that demonstrate major flaws in your reasoning.
For example: A hacker hacks into a computer network and downloads a bunch of video games that are due to be released by that company the next day. The hacker then releases these games on the internet for free. The hacker contacts the company and notifies them he has trespassed and tells them how to fix the firewall. The company has the hacker arrested for trespassing. The hacker pleads guilty to trespassing but there is no compensation awarded since there are no damages, no time spent finding the security leak and nothing was stolen.
Or, an employee takes the data and releases it, even if he had an agreement stating he would not do that, since nothing was lost then it is hard to see how other than dismissal what would happen to the employee under your reasoning.
Your reasoning takes something that the marketplace views as theft and says that it is not. Notice, I did not mention the government so please address these scenarios in the absence of any government protection as it currently exists.
That doesn’t matter, Steve.
Where is this marketplace?
Stranger, you should explain why IP can be enforced as if it were physical property. You need to provide a real moral argument as opposed to your fascistic world view of "might - makes - right ".
And no, ‘utilitarianism’ and your babbling about ‘division of labour’ don’t count as arguments.
Excuse me ? The microsoft mafia is the biggest ‘software’ company on earth ? Please name all the ‘innovations’ they created ?
Property is not a moral end.