In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor
Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly? Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain, and only that. The goal of copyright is not “money” and monopolies, but that’s what capitalism does to things designated as property.
The fact you can transfer and sell your copyright (because it’s property in capitalism), it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. If copyright was not tradeable or transferable, we wouldn’t be in in this situation where art is property to be owned.
Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.
Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain
You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.
If copyright was not tradeable or transferable
Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.
Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly? Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain, and only that. The goal of copyright is not “money” and monopolies, but that’s what capitalism does to things designated as property.
The fact you can transfer and sell your copyright (because it’s property in capitalism), it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. If copyright was not tradeable or transferable, we wouldn’t be in in this situation where art is property to be owned.
Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.
You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.
Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.