Piracy-Crippled Game From Hunted Cow Returns to App Store as 'Battle Dungeon: Risen'

[Abazigal]

I personally don't like the concept of freemium games (quite a few require you to spend exhorbitant sums of money just to make the game playable, and its competitive online nature all but encourages people to spam upgrades in a neverending arms race), but my heart goes out to the developers who sunk in their time and money into this business venture.

 

[anarchopath]

Arguing about semantics of "property" does nothing but dance around the true subject at hand

No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence.

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

 

[Michael Goff]

As with any topic of piracy, you have people trying to justify it.

I shouldn't be shocked... and I'm not.

 

[SmoMo]

No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence.

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

Consider this, lets say that you pirating an App is actually not in anyway immoral. Lets say it is completely neutral, perhaps because you made a digital copy so the author hasn't lost anything, and because you were never going to buy it anyway so they haven't even lost out on the potential of money.

Lets start with this common ground, that you pirating the App is not immoral.

Ok, is that where it ends?
No, because to understand the morality of this situation in which you were free to choose one action over another we also have to consider the situations that didn't happen because of your choice.
Lets say you like the App, or you like what the Author tried to do ( but didn't quite succeed ) so you decide to pay them for the work. Now this is no longer of neutral morality is it, now this is presumably a positive action.
You are supporting the author and in that way supporting something far greater, the progress of art and the global society.

So lets look at person A and person B here, what do we think of them? Is one of them selfish, or childish, is one of them more interesting, more generous and mature with their actions?
Who is really acting as a moral instrument and using their abilities and free-will to shape the world into a better place?

Now what kind of person do you want to be? but more to the point is it immoral to spend your life as person A, and if that is you, wouldn't you want to be prodded by people more enlightened that yourself, and given the chance to use your life to do something good rather than just arguing (with such pointless energy) only to get yourself to a morally neutral position?

Consider the difference between the morality of your actions, and the potential morality of your actions, and you'll see that choosing a neutral path is immoral if you are in fact capable of achieving better.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

No, you're wrong. Let me repeat: moral norms and justice systems universally stem from property. This has always been, and will always be, because we exist in an environment of scarcity, and property is a construct to reduce conflict over scarce resources. In a world where resources are infinite and instantly accessible, property doesn't exist, and therefore neither does morality or justice, because there is no room for conflict over scarce resources.

The root concept behind mutually voluntary exchange (or what you're calling "fair trade") is property. When two parties exchange, they are exchanging owned scarce resources. At a bare minimum, they own the scarce resource that is their body, and they own the scarce resource they intend to exchange. This is elementary economics.

My point was that this framework develops automatically, spontaneously, as a necessary fact of the human condition. Humans naturally value property as a means to reduce conflict within a reality of scarce resources.

The root premise of government granted monopoly privileges (of which IP is an example) is the use of violence or threats of violence to restrict what people (who aren't given the monopoly grant) can peacefully do with their property. Obviously, peaceful people don't value this, and therefore all of history managed to avoid its institutionalization, until VERY RECENTLY when governments began imposing it—and what else would you expect, from institutionalized monopolies on violence.

So don't get involved in a philosophical discussion and dismiss the opposition as "semantic". And don't try to rationalize IP via morality, because it flies in the face of everything morality is based on. You don't use violence to intimidate peaceful people, and you don't treat other people as your slaves, deciding what they can't do peacefully with their property.

This is so inaccurate, I don't know where to start.

Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness (i.e. don't lie), etc.. are all designed to keep the society healthy and functional because without trust (i.e. everyone stealing from, and lying to, each other) and security (everyone routinely killing and/or harming each other) the society will break down. Morality is by no means limited to dealings with property; personal property is merely a part of it - not the part of it.

Secondly, that world you're talking about, using your own twisted definition of "scarce" and "infinite" resources does not, and will not, exist for as long as humans play any role in creating things. When, and if, the time comes where robots and computers will do all our bidding, including creating new entertainment content (which'll require a great deal of imagination and creativity, effectively eliminating that possibility...), and all humans would do is eat/crap/sleep, then your argument will hold water. As of now, it doesn't.

This brings me to another point. When you acquire (whether legally or illegally) digital content (which is effectively infinite), you aren't utilizing it as a resource - you're utilizing the work, knowledge, expertise and creativity and imagination of the humans that created it - a very much scarce resource - even more so in case of indie developers.

Lastly, I stand by my belief that your "philosophical" tirade is really a diversionary tactic to detach the content creator from the created content, in order to justify piracy. Believe what you want to believe, and justify what you want to justify but my original point stands. By acquiring and using a particular piece of content, one acknowledges that the resource which helped make it, namely the creator's time/expertise/imagination/creativity (which is very much a scarce resource), is useful and/or beneficial to them. By doing that, in turn, one has a moral obligation to pay for the resource they've utilized to their use/benefit.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I was just going to say the same. Stealing is taking the original while piracy leaves the original in tact and duplicates it.

Kind of like Samsung with the iPhone/iPad, eh?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So it's okay to steal somebodies time, because it is their time and not their property?

I devoted 7 years of the spare time of my life to making pinball games for Visual Pinball and gave it all away for free. I released a music album on iTunes, Amazon, etc. and it costs less than $1 per song. I don't see tons of people buying it. Frankly, I'd be happy if people just listened to it. An artist doesn't make art for it to sit in a glass case underground in a vault. I used to copy software for the C64 when I was a kid, but we were very poor and I wasn't going to be able to buy them anyway. So maybe that's why I have a slightly better attitude about giving away software in return. If I make money, great. If not, it's a hobby. Developing cheap games for an iPhone isn't exactly something one should bet their lives on, IMO. I have a job with a regular income that comes first. iOS games might be a good way to get rich at some point, but I wouldn't bet my house mortgage on it to do it full time.

These developers spend 100's of hours building these Apps in the hope that they get paid. They usually don't have the backing of a huge company like EA or Microsoft.

Yeah well I spent THOUSANDS of hours making those pinball games to give away for free and only asked people donate to charity in return if they liked the game. I seriously think some people have too much greed in their minds rather than thinking about the less fortunate as I think back to my own childhood. Yeah, adults with jobs should buy the games if they like them, but on the other hand, Apple has created a system whereby you cannot try a DEMO of the game first at all. I know I don't like buying games I can't try first (particularly those $60 ones you talk about). In other words, just because someone tries a game off a pirate site, it doesn't mean they won't buy it later if they actually like the game. Intellectual property that can be copied/borrowed/duplicated simply doesn't always "neatly" fit the right/wrong category like some want to portray it. I used to try those $60 type games by renting them at Blockbuster first, but they're all gone now. I've also tried various console and computer and even iOS games at a friend's house on their system using their game. Who hasn't watched a movie at a friend's house? So if someone gets a torrent of a game to try it out first and then buys it later are they still a low life?

A decade ago I could see why people would pirate games. $60 for a game can be pretty expensive for a lot of people. But the majority of these types of games cost less than a gallon of milk.

Angry Birds and Bejeweled were worth every penny and then some, but even then they're better on a larger screen, IMO. I haven't been too crazy about anything else I've tried on the iOS platform (solitaire/card games and word puzzles get some play, but otherwise, I stick mostly to music here. iOS is a lousy gaming platform, IMO. I prefer actual computer/console games.

I think my point is that worrying about so-called "lost sales" is just worrying. Most of these people wouldn't buy the game even if they couldn't get it for free. They'd just do without (whether by choice or fortune) and find something else to do. Again, I'd rather someone listen to my songs for free on Spotify (yeah it might as well be for free there seeing they don't even pay 1 cent per play) than not listen at all since art is meant to be seen/heard/played and not just for the well off (the $60 analogy again). It's why we have libraries (and like it or not they are subsidized by tax payers...OMG it's socialism run amok! )

I was once told people get their real award in Heaven. Well, unless Heaven is some kind of Capitalistic Paradise, I don't think whining about people not paying for a copy of something in life is the point of it all. Maybe I'm just crazy that way (and yes I do buy games now as do a lot of people who can afford it). But even so I won't be "buying" Diablo 3 until they either lower the price or make it stand-alone so I'm not just "leasing" for $60 since that game being based on the auction house system and having to be connected to play it is more like trying to grab someone's money than making an actual good game, IMO so I bought Torchlight and Torchlight 2 instead.

In other words, I'm not trying to justify piracy, but rather I'm pointing out that it's not always quite as black and white as it appears to be. The concept of "intellectual property" is a relatively new thing in the past couple of centuries and the difference between downloading a movie torrent and watching it and then deleting it and going to your local library and borrowing the SAME movie on a DVD or BD and watching it and then returning it is functionally identical but legal opposites (i.e. one is legal and the other is illegal and yet in either case you watch the movie for free and no property is lost). Personally, I'd stick more with a motto of supporting artists you like, especially if you want them to keep making art. That makes logical sense. Calling someone a thief for playing a game on their friend's XBox instead of buying their own copy doesn't make quite so much sense, IMO but that's the way newer DRM online games are trying to make it, so you have to have your own serialized copy to even start the game. Who didn't trade Atari/Coleco type cartridges with their neighbors when they were a kid that grew up back then?

 

[RobertMartens]

Pirating software is not theft. It is wrong, it is morally reprehensible, the people who do it are culpable, but it is not the crime of theft nor should it be analogized to it. It's plain different.

Theft, as defined by some the top legal minds, is only applies to things that are commoditizable and exhaustible. Meaning, it only applies to things that can be bought and sold, and only when the wrong committed deprives the rightful owner of doing what they want with it.

Infringing on someones copyright does not deprive the original owner of buying, selling, copying, etc. their original copy. Also, the right to copy and sell copies is not really a commodity, not in the traditional sense anyway.

Of all analogies to common crimes, infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass. The copyright owner has this metaphorical piece of property, and the infringer goes onto this property and uses it. He does not deprive the owner of their use (he stays out of his way), and he does not lower the properties value. He is intruding on the owner's right to exclude, that is all.

So I close this argument by saying software is analogous to nothing else. Therefore don't try.


Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.


Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?

"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!

 

[RobertMartens]

On another side note, I hate people who say "Well said Sir".

Actually I hate when people say, "I hate people who..." when they really mean " I hate when people..."

----------

This is so inaccurate, I don't know where to start.

Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society. .....

Secondly, that world you're talking about, using your own twisted definition of "scarce" and "infinite" resources does not, and will not, exist for as long as humans play any role in creating things. .....

This brings me to another point. When you acquire (whether legally or illegally) digital content (which is effectively infinite),...

Lastly, I stand by my belief that your "philosophical" tirade is really a diversionary tactic to detach the content creator from the created content, in order to justify piracy. Believe what you want to believe, a.....

Do you know many people who share all of your beliefs?
It seems most everyones beliefs are slightly or greatly different from each other.

Good to see you have nailed down the exact right beliefs for us.

 

[CylonGlitch]

I personally don't like the concept of freemium games (quite a few require you to spend exhorbitant sums of money just to make the game playable, and its competitive online nature all but encourages people to spam upgrades in a neverending arms race), but my heart goes out to the developers who sunk in their time and money into this business venture.

Agreed whole heartedly.

 

[smetvid]

The argument that if there was a trial version this wouldn't happen is just not true. Look at software like Adobe Photoshop that does in fact have a 30 day fully functional trial version and yet is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there. Having a trial version does nothing to curb pirating. Diablo 3 in fact had a trial version up to a certain point in the game but people still pirate it.

Humans are not honest enough for that kind of thinking. Maybe some of you can sleep at night with this justification but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules to cater to your own selfish needs. You as an individual do not get to decide how and when a copyrighted material is ok or not ok to pirate.

 

[Digitalclips]

So I close this argument by saying software is analogous to nothing else. Therefore don't try.


Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.


Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?

"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!

This entire discussion has been fascinating thanks guys. I reply here to all involved not this poster per se.

I'd suggest one more analogy (just for fun ) ... if you 'borrow a key and duplicate it, then return the original then use that duplicated key to access the key owner's house to tap a connection to his electrical supply to run your house... are you guilty of any kind of theft? Or is it copyright infringement? /s

The key is duplicated and the electricity is not exhausted but I'd say the software / server analogy is pretty close. I'm sure a judge would look on the free electricity, paid for my the owner as theft. Those servers cost money to build and run!

My 2 cents is this is another case of the legal experts here spouting laws that are simply from a pre internet / computer world that don't fit. Remember when it was OK to register a domain name called Delta.com but you sure as hell couldn't open a burger joint called McDonalds? Eventually the law caught up and names of established companies had protection for domain names. This whole piracy / theft / duplication thing needs to catch up too.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Secondly, calling it piracy seems to be a big mistake. It seems to romanticize the issue.


pirate |ˈpʌɪrət|
noun
• a person who appropriates or reproduces the work of another for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright: [ as modifier ] : pirate recordings.

The term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement since the 18th century. I agree with you that it's a misnomer. Pirates, in the original sense, stole goods and people using violence. So by calling copyright infringement piracy, we are implying that it is as bad as violence and we are imputing the idea of theft. Both are incorrect, in my opinion.

Apparently you need to appropriate for profit. How does one profit by simply playing a game?

It is a federal crime, with some hefty punishments, to infringe a copyright for the purpose of profit. See chapter 17 of the USC. Case law has developed this a bit further, and you don't have to actually profit; further simple malice is enough. So, if one could prove that whoever released those pirated games did so for the purpose of selling banner ads on the site, or to specifically harm the game creator, they could be criminally guilty.

"It is wrong,
it is morally reprehensible,
the people who do it are culpable."

Your claims, especially the moral ones seem not to have the following of most people who use computers.

If morality doesn't have the support of the people, what kind of morality is it?

"infringing a copyright is most similar to trespass."

Have you ever swum at someone else's private beach without them knowing it?

How about rode mountain bikes on someones else's mountain?

reprehensible!

First, it does have the support of the people. Few people say its 100% ok to infringe someones copyright, or to use someones hard work without attributing them or paying them something. It's all relative though. How blameworthy is a certain action? Many studies show that (obviously) holding someone up at gun point to steal their book is more blameworthy than downloading an infringing ebook. This doesn't mean the people support downloading infringing ebooks.

I still maintain that copyright infringement is most analogous to trespass. I'm not sure what your examples are trying to illustrate, but yes I have done those things. They were wrong (in a very small way, but still wrong), but I did them. If those landowners wanted, they could bring a civil case against me. Trespass is a common law crime, and I would have to repay them for the rights I deprived them of. For mountain biking across someone's forested acre, it would probably be nominal damages, $1. With copyright infringement, the civil damages should be similar: figure out how much harm I actually caused, and make me repay it. None of that $35 per song nonsense they came up with in the Tenenbaum case, but figure out the actual harm once the infringing song has been deleted from my computer. My guess is it would also be a nominal $1.

Swimming at a private beach is different, since water has special rules depending on the state. In most states, just swimming at someone's beach is not trespass at all.

 

[moogleii]

Why couldn't Y be a really large number? That is what they were saying, isn't it? If EA couldn't pull off a simcity launch correctly (among other companies in the past), I imagine it's not as easy as you're implying to handle unforeseen server usage. That's the nature of the beast: it's unforeseen; a surprise.

If they weren't using a scalable cloud service, then that would mean even if they were able to somehow predict the pirate swarm, they would have had to over-buy non-scalable server power, putting in excessive initial capital that they might not have had. And that's just assuming they could accurately predict pirate traffic.

If they were using scalable cloud services, then of course, if Y is significantly greater than X, you're spending more money than you're bringing in.

So are the developers saying that they sold X copies of the game, but for every legitimate copy there were Y pirate copies being played?

I don't understand how this resulted in their server experiencing too much congestion unless Y is a really large number right?
Even if 99% of the copies were pirate I am surprised the server could not cope, after-all surely they were prepared for that eventuality in case they had actually managed to sell that many copies.

Perhaps they were using a scalable cloud service and they just couldn't afford to keep it running due to such poor sales, and emphasising the large number of pirate copies was a way to save face.

I don't know, so I would take what they say at face value, but I'd love to know the value of Y.

 

[alent1234]

they were using Amazon EC2 like everybody uses. with amazon you pay for storage and for the amount of data in and out you use.

pirated copies hitting the server means you are paying for bandwidth you didn't get paid for

 

[JAT]

Tbh, I do pirate

Found that amusing.

 

[anarchopath]

Firstly, moral norms, justice systems, government-imposed laws, and even religious "commandments" and guidelines, stem from the need to have a normally functional society.

Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms don't arise from a need for norms, lol. Norms are what we observe to be the spontaneously arrived at standard, the general tendency.

My point is moral norms and justice systems almost universally have their foundation in property. You don't assault, you don't steal, and you don't trespass.

This is why you can't have IP while supporting morality or justice—because fundamentally, IP relies on the use of violence and threats of violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their property.

Secondly, that world you're talking about...of "scarce"...resources does not, and will not, exist

I can't really take you seriously here... Of course we exist in a world of scarce resources, that's why property is a naturally pervasive construct—to reduce conflict over scarce resources. This is elementary economics/common law...

[If you derive value from information, you owe money to the originator.

No. That's absolutely preposterous and intellectually bankrupt. When someone releases information into the world, they take responsibility for that. They can't just go around hurting people and threatening people (via government) who happen to make productive, peaceful use of information! That's economically damaging and morally void—naturally though, right? I mean what else would you expect from government, the single institution responsible for by far the vast majority of theft, slavery, and killing (not to mention maming and ruining lives and families) in history.

And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.

 

[Consultant]

1. Developers spent time and resources to create their product
2. You used it without paying, incurring costs and lost revenue

Do you like getting paid for your work? Does your boss take your work and say: I don't like it thus you are not getting paid?

Perhaps you don't have a job, thus you don't understand the concept of getting paid for work?

If you do have a job, why do you try to justify stealing few dollars from developers?

Do you think laws against violent crimes are "immoral" or "unjust"?

Circular logic is fallacious reasoning. Norms don't arise from a need for norms, lol. Norms are what we observe to be the spontaneously arrived at standard, the general tendency.

My point is moral norms and justice systems almost universally have their foundation in property. You don't assault, you don't steal, and you don't trespass.

This is why you can't have IP while supporting morality or justice—because fundamentally, IP relies on the use of violence and threats of violence to restrict what peaceful people can do with their property.



I can't really take you seriously here... Of course we exist in a world of scarce resources, that's why property is a naturally pervasive construct—to reduce conflict over scarce resources. This is elementary economics/common law...



No. That's absolutely preposterous and intellectually bankrupt. When someone releases information into the world, they take responsibility for that. They can't just go around hurting people and threatening people (via government) who happen to make productive, peaceful use of information! That's economically damaging and morally void—naturally though, right? I mean what else would you expect from government, the single institution responsible for by far the vast majority of theft, slavery, and killing (not to mention maming and ruining lives and families) in history.

And I wouldn't expect the mindless drones who support government out of failure to think critically to challenge it in one of it's most economically and morally defunct institutions: IP. So I understand why you support government and IP, but please, for justice and humanity, stop to think for a second.

 

[anarchopath]

1. Developers spent time and resources to create their product
2. You used it without paying, incurring costs and lost revenue

1. Bank robbers spend time and resources robbing a bank. Just like IP supporters, bank robbers use violence and threats of violence to control your property. So what? That doesn't make it right.

2. No, you used A COPY. The lost revenue is due to the creators failed business model that relies on government grants of monopoly and threats of violence in order to maintain relevance, instead of being mature and dealing honestly, networking, and advancing with the times.

 

[alent1234]

1. Bank robbers spend time and resources robbing a bank. Just like IP supporters, bank robbers use violence and threats of violence to control your property. So what? That doesn't make it right.

2. No, you used A COPY. The lost revenue is due to the creators failed business model that relies on government grants of monopoly and threats of violence in order to maintain relevance, instead of being mature and dealing honestly, networking, and advancing with the times.

copyright/patents and IP laws in general are hundreds of years old. they were passed because people would rip off the work of others. specifically in England in the 1600's

 

[anarchopath]

copyright/patents and IP laws in general are hundreds of years old. they were passed because people would rip off the work of others. specifically in England in the 1600's

Yes, very new indeed, because in the entire history of humanity, people weren't violent and ignorant enough to support such a morally and economically bankrupt system. It took the modern state to forcefully impose monopoly grants (e.g. copyright, patent, etc.) and enforce them. So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

 

[alent1234]

Yes, very new indeed, because in the entire history of humanity, people weren't violent and ignorant enough to support such a morally and economically bankrupt system. It took the modern state to forcefully impose monopoly grants (e.g. copyright, patent, etc.) and enforce them. So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

for most of human history almost 100% of the population has been involved in the production of food. until the last few decades there was no supermarket where you could buy food all year round. for most of human history you saved enough food for the winter or you died

as agriculture improved people were freed up to do other things. this is when IP laws came into existence. as a nation advances there are less and less people involved in the production of food and manufacturing. more people are involved in the production of knowledge and art.

 

[anarchopath]

for most of human history almost 100% of the population has been involved in the production of food. until the last few decades there was no supermarket where you could buy food all year round. for most of human history you saved enough food for the winter or you died

as agriculture improved people were freed up to do other things. this is when IP laws came into existence. as a nation advances there are less and less people involved in the production of food and manufacturing. more people are involved in the production of knowledge and art.

So what's your point?

Who cares what propaganda is used to pass a law? Governments used to enforce slavery laws because slaves were considered property. That didn't actually mean slaves SHOULD be property, and IP laws don't mean IP actually IS property. A law isn't de facto just, by mere virtue of being passed.

 

[alent1234]

the point is that people learned hundreds of years ago that you need to use the power of law to keep the leachers and freetards at bay or else progress will end

patents and copyrights are in the constitution because the founding fathers used Europe as a model

 

[anarchopath]

the point is that people learned hundreds of years ago that you need to use the power of law [to enforce slavery]

No, no you don't. Just because people believe something barbaric and use the violence of government to enforce their savage opinions doesn't mean a law is morally viable or economically efficient.

keep the leachers and freetards at bay or else progress will end

Wow... articulate finely tuned fearmongering... we're all frightened of the world grinding to a halt if government fails to hand out monopoly privileges...

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument, because you provided only your baseless opinion, the question stands: at what cost? I mean you can rationalize all sort of evil if you're just willing to sacrifice morality and economics "for the greater good".

And at least one IP attorney disagrees with you.