Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else's Work?

[nsane.forums]

Copyright monopolists insist on the idea of controlling the fruits of other people’s labor, such as when other people copy a particular file. This attitude is offensive, insulting, and antithetical to a free market.

The famous philosopher John Locke once published the idea that a person has the right to profit off of the fruits of their labor.

This is only partially true. Once you have sold something, you hold no further rights to profit off of it. This is fairly obvious, but needs to be stated for context.

An entrepreneur can sell one or both of two things: you can sell products, and you can sell services. If somebody decides to make shiny things and sell them, they have a right to profit off the fruit of that labor – but only up until the point where they sell the shiny things. Their ownership of the shiny thing, and their right to profit, ends the second the item is sold to somebody. Conversely, if somebody decides to sell their time in selling services, their right to profit ends the second they stop working for the person they have sold their time to.

In geek terms, entrepreneurship is finding a value differential in society, constructing a conduit between the two endpoints and sticking a generator in the middle of the conduit. Profit ensues from the generator until the value differential has equalized to the point where the pressure is no longer sufficient to overcome the resistance of the generator, at which point the conduit stops working.

This is how a free market works, and it is regarded as the foundation of our economy. However, copyright monopolists are trying their hardest to muddle this simple and fundamental principle, by claiming a continued kind of ownership even after something is sold. That’s not how a market works. That’s a monopoly. That’s harmful. That’s bad.

We have indeed observed before how the copyright monopoly stands in direct opposition to property rights, sabotaging this foundation of our economy and the fundamentals of entrepreneurship.

So for the sake of argument, let’s assume I am given a copy of the movie The Avengers by somebody. It is one of many copies. There are many ones like it, but this one is mine. It is my property in all its aspects.

However, copyright monopolists would argue that they should continue to control my property. This is not just strange, but offensive. Even worse, when I do some labor on my own property, such as executing a “copy file” command on it, the copyright monopolists claim they should control that labor too – as well as the fruits of it. This is outrageous and has me fuming over their arrogance.

When I manufacture another copy of The Avengers using my own property and my own labor, copyright monopolists somehow believe they have a right to the fruits of my labor. I find that idea offensive and insulting.

It is true that the ease of my labor depends on many people having worked on other things before me. However, this is true with all entrepreneurship. My ability to copy a particular file depends not just on those who created the file, but also on those who invented electricity generators, the modern graphics card, the keyboard, wire insulation, storage media, networking protocols, and many, many other things. This is as ancient as Rome: entrepreneurship has always built on the already-performed work of others, and one set of previous such entrepreneurs do obviously not get any kind of special privileges on a functioning market.

Anybody is free to create shiny things, but their ownership over the shiny thing stops the instant they sell it. That’s how a market works. Claiming control over the fruits of other people’s labor, such as when somebody makes a copy of a file using their own property, is deeply, deeply immoral.

View: Original Article

[Ambrocious]

MEGALOMANIA - WIKIPEDIA:

Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.^[1] Historically it was used as an old name for narcissistic personality disorder prior to the latter's first use by Heinz Kohut in 1968, and is used these days as a non-clinical equivalent.^[2][3] It is not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)^[4] or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD).

Etymology

The word megalomania is derived from the Greek words "μεγαλο": megalo-, meaning large or great, and "μανία": mania,
meaning madness, frenzy. The first attested use of the word
"megalomania" in English is in 1890 as a translation of the French word
"mégalomanie".

Proposed distinction from narcissism: Bertrand Russell

A quotation by Bertrand Russell gives his interpretation of megalomania: "The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist
by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and
seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics
and most of the great men of history."^[5]

Early Freudianism

Russell's near-contemporary, Sigmund Freud, freely used the same term in a comparable way. Referring with respect to an adult neurotic to 'the omnipotence
which he ascribed to his thoughts and feelings', Freud reckoned that
'this belief is a frank acknowledgement of a relic of the old
megalomania of infancy'.^[6] Similarly Freud concluded that 'we can detect an element of megalomania in most other forms of paranoic
disorder. We are justified in assuming that this megalomania is
essentially of an infantile nature and that, as development proceeds, it
is sacrificed to social considerations'.^[7]

Edmund Bergler, one of his early followers, considered that 'as Freud and Ferenczi
have shown, the child lives in a sort of megalomania for a long period;
he knows only one yardstick, and that is his own over-inflated
ego....Megalomania, it must be understood, is normal in the very young
child'.^[8] Bergler was of the opinion that in later life 'the activity of gambling in itself unconsciously activates the megalomania and grandiosity of childhood, reverting to the "fiction of omnipotence".^[9]

Otto Fenichel states that, for those who react in later life to narcissistic hurt with denial, ' a regression
to narcissism is also a regression to the primary narcissistic
omnipotence which makes its reappearance in the form of megalomania'.^[10]

Object relations

Where Freud saw megalomania as an obstacle to psychoanalysis, in the second half of the 20th century object relations theory, both in the States and among British Kleinians,
set about 'rethinking megalomania... intent on transforming an
obstacle... into a complex organization that linked object relations and
defence mechanisms' in such a way as to offer new 'prospects for therapy'.^[11]

Heinz Kohut regarded 'the narcissistic patient's "megalomania"...as part of normal development. By contrast, Kernberg viewed the "grandiose self" as pathological, as an instance of development gone away',^[12] as did Herbert Rosenfeld and John Steiner.
Thus 'when it came to megalomania - Freud's term - or the grandiose
self - Kohut and Kernberg's term - or the omnipotent self - Rosenfeld's
term - there was disagreement....Developmental arrest or pathological
formation?'^[13]

Everyday

Arguably, however, 'in addition to its pathological forms,
megalomania is a mental behavior that can be used by any individual as a
way of coping with distress linked to frustration, abandonment, loss,
or disappearance of the object'^[14] in everyday life. In this sense, we may see 'megalomania as an extreme form of manic defense...against the anxiety resulting from separation from the object'.^[15]

In the social world, 'megalomania...can be a characteristic of power-drunk or control-freak dictators, some executives, some politicians and some army generals'.^[16]
All such figures may be said to have 'a "Big Ego". A baby's ego, in
fact, insufficiently shrunk....So they're much more likely to miscalculate. To offend people'.^[17]

Therapy

Unfortunately, 'a person with megalomania may not be interested in self-reflection or personal change',^[18] so the talking cures may be less effective than medication.

An additional complication with analysis is comprised by the
transference: 'if the analyst has any tendencies toward megalomania or
authoritarianism, the response of the patient to the analyst will
strengthen them'.^[19]

Alexander the Great

Main article: Alexander the Great

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander the Great began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.^[20] His extraordinary achievements, coupled with his own ineffable sense of destiny and the flattery of his companions, may have combined to produce this effect.^[21]

[Bizarre™]

Why Do Copyright Monopolists Think They Can Just Take Somebody Else's Work?

It all boils down to greed :bag:

[GPSBaltic]

I also think sometimes that this thing is pretty much down.
If I have a torrent site, then I do not share the files there but who those files upload and download they break a law.

I should be a clean guy, but I guess it is not.

And some years in jail (1-25) for more than is absolutely thrown. Some can be difficult for a criminal offense for 4 years. some gets of file swapping a criminal offense 15 years . What' the point?
Interestingly, if piracy does not spread as much. then users is also a little less,
Some company collapses :rolleyes: