• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    copyright is always a government enforced monopoly.

    that’s the only thing it is. it’s a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it’s not in relation to art?

    • shrugal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don’t have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created.

      As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can’t patent art.

        • shrugal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because the example is not about copyright in particular but monopoly vs exclusive access. I wanted one that’s not about art to illustrate the point, and the priciple is the same in this regard.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            trademark has nothing to do with copyright. they’re two sets of laws that developed a two different times for two different reasons.