Oddbean

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson

Certainly a common held belief comrade. If true it would mean that the mere addition of such an option like restricting copies by IP law completely derails the prosperity maximising nature of capitalism and incentivices the complete opposite. Even more troublesome in that case is the fact that technological solutions like DRM or the move to SaaS subscription models allow coorporations to do the exact same thing even in the Absence of enforcable IP laws. It certainly looks like capitalism would go that route even in the absence of such laws. It is much more likely, that it is in fact the Capitalists innate desire to gain as much profit for themself for as little effort as possible, that causes this rent seeking behavor, which cripples the free replication of digital goods and maximization of the prosperity of the many.

your priors are wrong. capitalism is not some system that was ‘designed’, nor does it aim to achieve anything. it is a natural outcome of the self-interest of individuals. you would be naive to assume to know how swathes of resources can be allocated to most effectively maximise prosperity. in terms of SaaS/DRM, this is still the result of the state. look at how easy it is, even currently, to torrent cracked SaaS, or to bypass DRM, but the reason this alt software doesn’t proliferate amongst businesses/individuals is the legal risk.

Digital goods like software and media can be copied for basically free. We know what the maximum prosperity of that looks like. It's when everyone can gets a free copy of whatever media or software they desire. The state doesn't force busineses to go the route of making digital goods artefically scarce. It is capitalism that incentivises this rent seeking behavior. Capitalism is not a hypothetical unregulated free market. It is a system where an owner class of people allocate capital in order to extract more capital from the work of others. That system incentives a certain behaviour and it is not in any way efficient in allocating resources to maximize prosperity. And it is just undeniably obvious in the case of digital goods. nostr:nevent1qqswl5l6phdn64x2thdfk4zg4mt40scc9dpguhegyzq4cnwang7r0hqpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygy0gnzkzvdnvfngkrsph6x8rvj8sevchd50hyyul4u040astrws7qpsgqqqqqqs2qpgsm

this is still the state’s fault. here’s a similar case: pharmaceutical companies get a patent for a new drug that will last for x years, and acting in their own self-interest they exploit the fact that they can extend the patent with minor modifications to the drug. it’s a drug that could easily be produced at a low-cost by competitors. as you’ve noted, the state doesn’t force them to extend their patents, but there’s a clear incentive for them to do this. yet in a free-market, this is not possible and competitors would make the drug. capitalism fixes this, but the state creates the problem.

The problem with our discourse I think is that we don't share the same definition for the word "capitalism". You seem to use it as a place holder for "free market" where all the decissions arise from individuals, while I use the historical meaning including all the free market interference that come with that construct of human society. The viability and capability of such a hypothetical free market is fascinating topic I may explore in the future. But it is simply not what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing against the free market. You yourself seem to acknowledge that such a free market does not exist but you seem to attribute the reason for why it doesn't exist soley to the "state" perhapt whithout asking the question how the state got the idea to implement this IP and patent laws in the first place.

yeah i don’t believe in differentiation with terms like laissez-faire or free-market capitalism- that is what capitalism fundamentally is to me. but it is just an economic lens, and society is also much broader than that. i think the state’s size and scale comes from the momentum of the past- this should change. IP/patents are meaningful because of that, and i believe they mostly come about because of the same incentives we’ve both discussed- self-interested individuals can lobby for it. if the state is not as powerful, it doesn’t matter if that happens.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. The state is the problem here. Best example is NVK. He calls for anarchism, shits on communism and socialism all day long but then uses state violence against people who use "his" code so actually he is the one who is taking other peoples property. Steroid level hypocrisy.