Whatever the merits of anti-copyright philosophy in the abstract, if you yourself are a middle-class consumer who is acting out of the selfish desire to torrent games for free, and you treat everyone skeptical of your views as a millionaire parasite, people won't like you
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
I feel like some is a form of accelerationism for UBIs and so on - if you make enough artists starve they'll vote for it
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Mr_Indigo
A lot of the super hardcore "leftist" side of anti-copyright shit takes this stance All art should be completely free to distribute, IP should not exist, artists should do what they do or of love and not any desire for monetary gain
5 replies 2 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
How should artists pay the rent and buy groceries? They should have equal free access to the necessities of life as everyone should, under conditions of full communism
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
It is a stupid argument because of the wild assumption that these two things will just go together as society "evolves" It's like Mr. Pink just never tipping at restaurants because if NOBODY tips then the bosses will HAVE NO CHOICE but to pay servers a decent wage
3 replies 4 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
The worst thing about this is that honestly the hardcore anti-IP stance is antithetical to Marxism and is if anything extremely "liberal" "It doesn't matter who wrote the book, once it exists anyone should be allowed to read it" is textbook alienated labor
1 reply 6 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
"I'm a fan of the BOOK, not the author, I don't see why I owe the author anything just because they wrote a book I like, they already got paid years ago" is textbook commodity fetishism - delusionally thinking you have a relationship with a product and not a person
1 reply 8 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
Like it doesn't matter what you call it "Copying isn't stealing", fine From a Marxist POV, is there still a person who performed labor, and did you gain value from that labor without their consent? Do they feel ripped off? Then you're practicing exploitation
1 reply 8 retweets 52 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Mr_Indigo
I’m actually kinda confused about where copyright-owning artists fit into a classical economics framework. I have a feeling the actual answer is “awkwardly.”
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
A copyright-owning artist ought not be considered a laborer in the classical sense — they *own* the property, after all. I suspect the publishing industry has somehow forced authors back into something like the classical worker-management relationship.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
There's always been an element of this to so-called "artisanal" labor even before the invention of "IP" in the modern sense, which is an artifact of mass media A craftsman owns "human capital", they get paid not just for the time they work but "no one weaves baskets as well"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.