>>504611>If personal property doesn't extend to works you create, then I don't really understand what it does extend to. That seems like the purest possible argument for ownership.
That's what is called intellectual property, the idea that a person can own a pattern or a process. That is, an idea.
I for one do not think intellectual property is property. I think ownership must be physical. I am for the complete abolition of copyrights and patents.
If you want to paint a picture, fine. If I want to make a version of that picture without icky brown people, so what? I didn't delete any pictures off your harddrive. Its just a pattern of pixels. You're going to tell me you own a pattern? Lets say you make a statue of Twilight Sparkle in your front yard, then I make one just like it, but with a big drippy horsecock. I didn't cross onto your property and damage your statue. I made my own.
What are patents and copyrights, really? They're state approved monopolies
. A monoply is one of the gravest enemies of the free market. In fact, intellectual property in general is a huge threat to the free market. Its one of the main reasons I do not consider the United States as being capitalist. The corporations have tied down everything we use in the name of intellectual property. The megacorps have their lawyers write laws to extend copyrights. They successfully lobbied to change the law so that lifeforms can be patented. Now they sue anyone who was unlucky enough to have their plants receive patented pollen.
These same people make regulations so byzantine and long that only they even know what they say. Small businesses can't start because they're no way to navigate the regulations unless you already have tons of money and a massive legal team. These are called 'barriers to entry.' In true capitalism, there are no barriers to entry. Anyone can throw their hat into the ring and start a business.
Anyway. my point is STFU