• misk@sopuli.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    No, why would they? There’s a difference between strong taking from the weak and community taking surplus from everyone.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

      • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft. It was common to outgrow this belief but it appears to be common now. I’ll try to explain.

        When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

        When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

          That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

          When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

          When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

          Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?