It’s important never to forget who sets the terms of commerce, wages, and employment.
All the peasants can do is game the terms they set. And the owner class that sets those rigged terms, and their doting class traitor sycophants, rage against even that.
“you you you… You’re just supposed to eat cat food in the dark crying if you can’t afford to enjoy life, while we laugh about your subsistence at the country club! No fair!”
You seem to be under the impression that people and corporations get equal treatment under the law.
Well, they do. It’s when humans and lawyers get Involved that things become unjust and unbalanced. The law itself is quite clear, otherwise.
You seem to be under the impression that they should. At what point does one person’s right to get richer override other people’s right to have a decent life?
Imagine if we could hook up Bittorrent and Bitcoin somehow, and made it so you could create a torrent of your work and get some money when people download.
And then people who seed it could maybe get a little cut for helping to host things. And you’d buy tokens and you’d know that almost 100% of the money goes to the artist, and the artist has control over the entire process.
That would be neat, but I’m sure someone here will explain why this is unworkable and stupid. Which is why I posted it.
Imagine YouTube reposts stealing merger ad revenue but it’s your main revenue instead.
Eight hours later, and no one disagreed.
I think you might be on to something
Good luck doing that with current laws and what happens if the artist doesn’t want to share their work anymore?
What’s funny is that in theory NFTs could have been used for something like that (proof of ownership of a digital good that can be resold), the problem being that you will rely on a third party platforms to authenticate and download the things you own as it can’t realistically be stored on the blockchain…
99% of revenue would go to the first copycats that can feasibly pretend the works are theirs, and dominate the space with their own seeder bots.
Democracy is nice, but…it needs a bit of regulation and enforcement. You’d end up slowly building up a lot of the rules that currently dictate digital purchases, sans corruption.
BRB in my to keep a rental car without paying.
“Piracy isn’t stealing? Does that mean stealing also isn’t stealing? Checkmate!”
I’m not owning the car after payment. And I have to follow criteria when using the car.
So why is that not ok?
-
Possessing a physical object is different from digital media. You aren’t copying a car, your possession of it prevents someone else from possessing it.
-
Renting a physical object does not mean the option to purchase the physical object and own it does not exist. Nobody was upset with the existence of video rental stores because they also had the option to buy and own the videos. If you purchased a movie from Walmart, Walmart didn’t come to your house and take the DVD away once they stopped stocking it.
-
1 and 2 are obvious, so you’re either an idiot and not worth trying to explain every simple concept to, or entirely disingenuous. Either way if you’re going to continue to JAQ off then it’s a waste of time to continue responding.
If house owning isn’t housing, shoplifting isn’t shopping
