That’s a different conversation. You’re redirecting. My statement was as to that copyright is not necessary for large corporations. I’m still anti corpo. Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries. They’d be able to freely do as china’s factories do. They’d simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 weeks ago
You merge or sue your competition to death for copyright violations first…
Capitalism without copyright…
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Yes,
Capitalism is the issue. Not copyright. Why do you think copyright is causing the problems that capitalism is causing.
A nonsense statement when said in reply to what I said.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Because the monopolies that capitalism creates, created copyright in the first place…. The monopoly on who gets to form corporations or not is a feature of capitalism that copyright or not strengthens. If you cease copyright altogether, capitalists will still abuse others because the government lobbied them so.
Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts. You can’t form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.
Copyright was expressely created to control the free flow of information, so the King and his nobility could amass wealth + control. It keeps working precisely because folks want a class society, wherein the law protects them, but punishes everyone else.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
This is just wrong. It’s not permission. You submit to their bureaucracy, yes, but that’s guaranteed if you submit your paperwork correctly, it’s not a permission.
This is not completely accurate. It implies it’s a prior approval situation instead of a post-revocable situation which while similar are notably different. The government cannot revoke those privileges arbitrarily. There is rules for them, but those rules do not restrict who does so, they restrict how it’s done.
Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism anymore than socialism is communism. When nobility exist and can arbitrarily set rules and taxes, that is not capitalism. That isn’t to say either are good, they’re both terrible systems. But the thing you described with a king is strictly not capitalism, it’s a different evil.