Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Plains-Cow]

Unfortunately, their stuff is so bad that nothing could fix it.

But consider the flip side. If you're suggesting that I do a copy/paste/fix-it on pro novels, what's to stop pro authors from stealing a fanfic author's story and passing it off as theirs?

That's why we're not allowed to discuss fanfiction or even mention ideas or suggestions in the TrekLit subforum at TrekBBS. Even if a fan were to tell the pro author, "It's okay to use my idea; I'd be honored to see it in a novel" the author cannot run the risk of the fan changing their mind and suing.

That's what happened with Marion Zimmer Bradley and a fanfic author. MZB, up to that point, had always encouraged fans to write stories and poems and songs and artwork for Darkover and she enjoyed reading them.

Did she use some of their ideas in her own books? Yes. Did the fan author get credit for them? No. The most a fan could hope for would be a mention in the dedication.

Things got legally ugly, however, when a fan and MZB were both working on a story covering the same events in Darkover's history - the events surrounding the murders of Rafael Hastur and Rafael Syrtis, by terrorists. That's a story that fans had long-wanted to see done, since those events were first alluded to in the novels The Bloody Sun and The Heritage of Hastur.

The fan sent her story to MZB - who read it - and then the fan asked for a co-author credit. Since by that time MZB couldn't prove that she hadn't copied any part of the fanfic story, both her agent and the publisher told her to kill the book. So the real story of what happened to the two Rafaels will forever be untold, especially since the fan author tried to make $$$$$ out of it another way...

... She knew the Darkover fans were unhappy with not getting to read this story. So she pitched an offer that if fans would send her money, she could take the time to sit home and write it (she called it "singing for her supper").

That backfired, big time. She'd already lost her legal battle with MZB. What MZB's estate did about it was to forbid any and all Darkover fanfiction, period. The fanfic sites aren't supposed to allow it, and anyone who owns it (ie. fanzines) is supposed to destroy it. If we've written any, we're supposed to either destroy it or change it so thoroughly that it can't possibly be mistaken for Darkover fanfiction.

So thanks a heap. Mind you, I suspect the fanfic sites only act if someone complains, and I very much doubt that anyone would who isn't part of the MZB Literary Trust. Some stories get unnoticed because they're in languages other than English. And I certainly have no intention of destroying the fanzines and filk music I've collected over the years, nor will I comply with the order to mutilate my own stories.

You can't "steal" a fanfic posted to the public, only pretend that you wrote it first. I think that if people are so worried about proper credit, then we can simply use the pervasive copyright system as a "credit system" of sorts or something similar that does not penalize or punish anyone or restrict the ability to copy. Still, I don't even think that's needed, because all work is derivative, so what does it matter? Why are people writing in the first place? You can't have a book-based economy in the first place, so what's the point of worrying about copying or changing of any works? Well, unless people are trying to make it rich off of selling a book, which is the false-song sun that Icarus that is Art flies up to to melt his wings.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Dollars are (theoretically) backed by something. If people just copy money, they are attempting to manufacture representative tokens for real goods that don't exist. The problem isn't the copying, it's the fact they're copying tokens that (theoretically) represent finite resources. Ergo, when they redeem copied dollars in the form of buying real goods, it's a form of fraud. The only reason governments are allowed to copy money is because they have a monopoly on force, allowing them to devalue currencies as desired. If you became Supreme Dictator, you could copy dollars until your heart's sated and the value is crashed. However, you can make an infinite amount of copies of a book, a video, a movie, etc, and the original still exists in an untainted form because movies/music/books are not mediums of currency exchange but forms of art. Art which is only profitable in the way it is because of draconian copyright which is dangled over the heads of creatives as if it's their only salvation from starving.

Comparing copying dollars to copying ideas is about as apples-to-oranges as you can get, I think.

I'm not talking about copying dollars, I'm talking about copying your bank account numbers for me to use. I could use it to get loans, or take your money or more. Hey I'm only copying something that is yours, so what? I could even just sell your bank account number to many others for a few bucks each. I guess you would approve of taking one of my better pictures from my safari thread, copying it and then putting it up on a stock photo site to make money?

Until an idea takes form (words, drawing, model, etc.) it is just thoughts in a person's head. Once it has form, it is no longer just an idea; it is a real thing. If I tell you my idea and you then take my words and do something with them you have taken something of I created/expressed (with or without permission). Do we own our thoughts? Do we own how we express those thoughts? Should you be able to make money off my expressed ideas without my permission?

The idea for a story is not a finished story, but nowadays folks sue over such matters. Because money and products are involved, the chain of connection becomes important. Ideas have become economically valuable.

 

[Gorbles]

Edison had no problem suing others for copying "his" work, whereas in an IP-free vacuum he's just one in a sea of guys building off of Tesla.

Except that freedom from IP doesn't free us from capitalism, which means Tesla still dies poor and alone, and Edison is seen as a successful innovator, with the narrative only changing many years later (and even then, not completely).

This is why it seems very meritocratic. "just do what you want, and may the best people win", except, we all know that's exactly how stuff doesn't work out, IP rights or not.

It isn't meritocratic or egalitarian. It's the stance that people shouldn't be punished for the impossible crime of thought theft. I have no idea about the Edison-Tesla point you're making, but I'd assume that Edison would be chapped if someone infringed on his copyright, meaning he and I would not be friends.

Everything comes from a thought, originally. Just doing away with IP rights isn't enough, because despite them being massively abused by massive corporations, they're also the only recourse individual creators have to protect their work from people who wish to plagiarise them. I note the same org you linked to previously was against the author's thing r.e. digital scanning of their work. This is why I ask, because "do what you want and the successful will be successful" fails to understand the conditions in which we exist under capitalism.

It's very much the mindset of people who are (for example) in favour of AI-generative technologies, because they don't see the inherent thought as having any worth. Any substance. "anyone can do it". Which is anathema to creative expression, and leads to things like companies laying off their employees because they think they can make do with flawed AI knockoffs of actual human labour. Which isn't a slippery slope, it's something that's already started to happen.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I'm not talking about copying dollars, I'm talking about copying your bank account numbers for me to use. I could use it to get loans, or take your money or more. Hey I'm only copying something that is yours, so what? I could even just sell your bank account number to many others for a few bucks each. I guess you would approve of taking one of my better pictures from my safari thread, copying it and then putting it up on a stock photo site to make money?

Until an idea takes form (words, drawing, model, etc.) it is just thoughts in a person's head. Once it has form, it is no longer just an idea; it is a real thing. If I tell you my idea and you then take my words and do something with them you have taken something of I created/expressed (with or without permission). Do we own our thoughts? Do we own how we express those thoughts? Should you be able to make money off my expressed ideas without my permission?

The idea for a story is not a finished story, but nowadays folks sue over such matters. Because money and products are involved, the chain of connection becomes important. Ideas have become economically valuable.

I don't get the point. You could just put down any amount of dollars down. You can use the same numbers in my account, I guess? What's stopping you? If they check your actual dollars, then it's a moot point regardless if you use my numbers or not.

I don't approve of stock photo sites because I don't approve of paywalling IP, so I don't see why I'd say entities that paywall IP in the first place are OK. Ergo, no, I wouldn't be OK with with copying a photo of yours to use on stock photo websites.

If I could ctrl+c ctrl+v bread into existence, then decide that anyone else that did so to feed themselves are infringing on my personal ability to produce bread, and then construct a mafia that physically accosts and imprisons those who attempt to replicate my methodology, then am I morally justified since I have the force to do so and my idea to restrict food production is economically viable?

Also, do you approve of being able to patent life and DNA a-la GMOs?

 

[Hygro]

The point being where you draw the line between ownership and an idea. If he uses your username and password and your routing number, he's just using an idea. But he's using your bank account.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Except that freedom from IP doesn't free us from capitalism, which means Tesla still dies poor and alone, and Edison is seen as a successful innovator, with the narrative only changing many years later (and even then, not completely).

This is why it seems very meritocratic. "just do what you want, and may the best people win", except, we all know that's exactly how stuff doesn't work out, IP rights or not.


Everything comes from a thought, originally. Just doing away with IP rights isn't enough, because despite them being massively abused by massive corporations, they're also the only recourse individual creators have to protect their work from people who wish to plagiarise them. I note the same org you linked to previously was against the author's thing r.e. digital scanning of their work. This is why I ask, because "do what you want and the successful will be successful" fails to understand the conditions in which we exist under capitalism.

It's very much the mindset of people who are (for example) in favour of AI-generative technologies, because they don't see the inherent thought as having any worth. Any substance. "anyone can do it". Which is anathema to creative expression, and leads to things like companies laying off their employees because they think they can make do with flawed AI knockoffs of actual human labour. Which isn't a slippery slope, it's something that's already started to happen.

Part of the reason our economic situation exists is because it's the inevitable outcome of when people want to be able to monetize their thoughts in the form of brutally punishing others with the arm of the state should they dare to "steal" them.

The idea that anyone can make millions of dollars off of writing a book is gross not because people shouldn't love books, it's gross because of the system that forces this to happen at the expense of public creativity, highlights its punishing of others that challenge it as a good thing, then dumps its bag of (copyrighted) swords over the pit of artists and says, "now, do the same and protect your 'property!'"

These people aren't excited to write. They're excited to be the next "big hit" and then want to pull the ladder up behind them as if their own writing doesn't borrow from countless uncredited aspects of humanity and history. They cheer on the system that allows them to be king of the hill on a throne made of copyrighted bayonets.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Except you're not writing a better story from scratch. You're benefiting from the labour of others, which your work is building off of.

KJA/BH didn't write a better story from scratch. Even though I don't believe for a moment that they followed anything in The Holy Notes That Frank Left, they did make use of the basic universe FH created, plus the main characters. The fact that they then turned everything into garbage still doesn't mean they created anything from scratch. Even the plotline in the Houses books with Leto vs. his mother is a ripoff of the story of Peter the Great. It's almost like KJA and I saw the same miniseries...

You can't "steal" a fanfic posted to the public, only pretend that you wrote it first. I think that if people are so worried about proper credit, then we can simply use the pervasive copyright system as a "credit system" of sorts or something similar. Still, I don't even think that's needed, because all work is derivative, so what does it matter? Why are people writing in the first place? You can't have a book-based economy in the first place, so what's the point of worrying about copying or changing of any works? Well, unless people are trying to make it rich off of selling a book, which is the false-song sun that Icarus that is Art flies up to to melt his wings.

Of course you can steal a fanfic posted to the public. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Fans can sue a pro author who uses any part of a story or even an idea that's been suggested.

I'm not making this up. These are the rules for posting in the TrekLit forum at TrekBBS

In case this isn't visible to non-members, here's the pertinent part of the rules:

As for fans plagiarizing from other fans... it happens. Ideally one fan will say to another, "I really like your story, especially this one part/a particular character you created. I have a story idea, would it be okay if I wrote it and credited you with the original idea?"

Sometimes the answer is yes, as long as credit is given and a link back to the first story is provided in the author's notes.

Sometimes the answer is no, and hopefully the fan who asked would respect that. I've seen instances of fans asking to translate stories into other languages. Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes it's no.

I'm in the situation of ideas occurring to me about expanding on other fanfic authors' ideas. I might boot them around by myself, but it would never occur to me to post anything without permission. That's a good way to get kicked off a site and shunned by the community. I'm in a good place now on AO3, corresponding with a few of the authors. There are a couple of them who have asked for recommendations for music that their characters could enjoy, and I'm happy to do so. But what they do with those recommendations is up to them.

I had a conversation with a Harry Potter fan author a couple of weeks ago about rubber ducks (this is the story in which Hermione and Arthur Weasley are married, and fans should remember that rubber ducks are one of the muggle things that fascinate Arthur). I'm curious to see if she'll do anything with the idea I had (I gave her permission to use it if she wanted).

 

[Plains-Cow]

The point being where you draw the line between ownership and an idea. If he uses your username and password and your routing number, he's just using an idea. But he's using your bank account.

I've already addressed this, then, in post 32?

 

[Plains-Cow]

KJA/BH didn't write a better story from scratch. Even though I don't believe for a moment that they followed anything in The Holy Notes That Frank Left, they did make use of the basic universe FH created, plus the main characters. The fact that they then turned everything into garbage still doesn't mean they created anything from scratch. Even the plotline in the Houses books with Leto vs. his mother is a ripoff of the story of Peter the Great. It's almost like KJA and I saw the same miniseries...



Of course you can steal a fanfic posted to the public. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Fans can sue a pro author who uses any part of a story or even an idea that's been suggested.

I'm not making this up. These are the rules for posting in the TrekLit forum at TrekBBS

In case this isn't visible to non-members, here's the pertinent part of the rules:

View attachment 670546

As for fans plagiarizing from other fans... it happens. Ideally one fan will say to another, "I really like your story, especially this one part/a particular character you created. I have a story idea, would it be okay if I wrote it and credited you with the original idea?"

Sometimes the answer is yes, as long as credit is given and a link back to the first story is provided in the author's notes.

Sometimes the answer is no, and hopefully the fan who asked would respect that. I've seen instances of fans asking to translate stories into other languages. Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes it's no.

I'm in the situation of ideas occurring to me about expanding on other fanfic authors' ideas. I might boot them around by myself, but it would never occur to me to post anything without permission. That's a good way to get kicked off a site and shunned by the community. I'm in a good place now on AO3, corresponding with a few of the authors. There are a couple of them who have asked for recommendations for music that their characters could enjoy, and I'm happy to do so. But what they do with those recommendations is up to them.

I had a conversation with a Harry Potter fan author a couple of weeks ago about rubber ducks (this is the story in which Hermione and Arthur Weasley are married, and fans should remember that rubber ducks are one of the muggle things that fascinate Arthur). I'm curious to see if she'll do anything with the idea I had (I gave her permission to use it if she wanted).

Without copyright, the Hollywood plagiarism and "ownership of thoughts" industry falls apart, and fans no longer need to worry as much about such things as the machine that fuels copyright withers and dies. Then everyone can make real art based on whatever they want. Plagiarism is only considered a big deal because of the dollar implications behind it and the pressures to get more dollars thanks to the copyright system. Otherwise it'd just be seen as a dick move that's easily debunked, just like if I were to say that I wrote Star Wars. As I said, I'm fine with people saying "I did this first," but others who do it different or better should be allowed to do so without being molested.

 

[Birdjaguar]

don't get the point.

It is a private property issue. What do people own and control? Do I own my face or its image? At what point does anything "personal" become public information?

I don't approve of stock photo sites because I don't approve of paywalling IP, so I don't see why I'd say entities that paywall IP in the first place are OK. Ergo, no, I wouldn't be OK with with copying a photo of yours to use on stock photo websites.

But would you approve of "ctrl C ing" one of them and using to your benefit, or of anyone else doing so?

Also, do you approve of being able to patent life and DNA a-la GMOs?

In general, no. We have made a complex world and one size is not likely to fit all. There is value in creating public good and doing so can be expensive. We need to encourage it but not to excessive compensation. Are potato plants that don't succumb to blight a public good? If I figure out how to do that, should I benefit? To what extent? Corporate ownership vs individual ownership are a large part of the problem.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then everyone can make real art based on whatever they want.

"real art"? What is that?

 

[Plains-Cow]

It is a private property issue. What do people own and control? Do I own my face or its image? At what point does anything "personal" become public information?

But would you approve of "ctrl C ing" one of them and using to your benefit, or of anyone else doing so?

In general, no. We have made a complex world and one size is not likely to fit all. There is value in creating public good and doing so can be expensive. We need to encourage it but not to excessive compensation. Are potato plants that don't succumb to blight a public good? If I figure out how to do that, should I benefit? To what extent? Corporate ownership vs individual ownership are a large part of the problem.

You can only own your own face, not the idea of your face, because what happens in the case of identical twins? Or if someone gets a facial reconstruction surgery done and it looks a lot like you? You going to sue them for stealing your face?

It sounds like your main gripe isn't even about the copying, it's about someone being able to put it to better use that the original person.

If you create a potato plant that doesn't succumb to blight, then you get to benefit from a potato plant that doesn't succumb to blight (and perhaps the satisfaction that this will probably help your fellow humans). That's the entire point of doing it. If they're doing it mostly for money, then it's only a short time until they discover it's way, way, WAAAYY easier to abuse copyright like we have today in the medical botany world rather than just make better things that actually work. Path of least resistance is to just sit on your copyright of whatever you can, consolidate your "intellectual property" by "buying" IP from other companies/individuals, and then watching the cash flow in.

 

[Gorbles]

Part of the reason our economic situation exists is because it's the inevitable outcome of when people want to be able to monetize their thoughts in the form of brutally punishing others with the arm of the state should they dare to "steal" them.

The idea that anyone can make millions of dollars off of writing a book is gross not because people shouldn't love books, it's gross because of the system that forces this to happen at the expense of public creativity, highlights its punishing of others that challenge it as a good thing, then dumps its bag of (copyrighted) swords over the pit of artists and says, "now, do the same and protect your 'property!'"

These people aren't excited to write. They're excited to be the next "big hit" and then want to pull the ladder up behind them as if their own writing doesn't borrow from countless uncredited aspects of humanity and history. They cheer on the system that allows them to be king of the hill on a throne made of copyrighted bayonets.

You and I aren't talking about the same people. Many authors don't earn millions. In fact, generally-speaking, the famous authors a lot of us know, make their money from TV or film tie-ins, merchandising, that kind of thing.

I'm trying to break down the fact that nobody "owns" a thought, this therefore means it can't be stolen. The article you provided really seems to hinge on the analogy of selling a piece of art as a commission, and being owed money for making art in the first place. But these don't seem like comparable examples, because plenty of people make art for free. The requirement for commissions in the first place stems from capitalism. It doesn't stem from the idea of copyrighting their art so they can ensure only they can sell it for a million pounds or whatever (backed up by, well, most of the history of art, where many artists were and are, in fact, dirt poor).

The fact that abuse happens, doesn't mean that therefore nobody owns anything. Writing of course borrows from uncredited (and at times, explicitly credited) historical references and other cultural artifacts. But that's not the same as plagiarism. The argument against copyright in this instance goes too far, and it harms actual creatives. Not people looking to make a quick buck.

 

[Plains-Cow]

"real art"? What is that?

Non-copyrighted art. Art that isn't restricted by copyright in any way. If you're asking the philosophical question "what is art?", then I have no answer, as all art is subjective.

 

[Plains-Cow]

You and I aren't talking about the same people. Many authors don't earn millions. In fact, generally-speaking, the famous authors a lot of us know, make their money from TV or film tie-ins, merchandising, that kind of thing.

I'm trying to break down the fact that nobody "owns" a thought, this therefore means it can't be stolen. The article you provided really seems to hinge on the analogy of selling a piece of art as a commission, and being owed money for making art in the first place. But these don't seem like comparable examples, because plenty of people make art for free. The requirement for commissions in the first place stems from capitalism. It doesn't stem from the idea of copyrighting their art so they can ensure only they can sell it for a million pounds or whatever (backed up by, well, most of the history of art, where many artists were and are, in fact, dirt poor).

The fact that abuse happens, doesn't mean that therefore nobody owns anything. Writing of course borrows from uncredited (and at times, explicitly credited) historical references and other cultural artifacts. But that's not the same as plagiarism. The argument against copyright in this instance goes too far, and it harms actual creatives. Not people looking to make a quick buck.

I didn't link any articles? Only a fun video explaining why copying is not theft.

You also can't "borrow" an idea because you can't "return" an idea. Copyright abolitionism is the only thing that eliminates this poison from society. We all simply write, sing, act out, etc, our arts on what came before us. Everything is derivative, and literally zero harm is done to a creative if someone copies their work 1:1.

 

[Gorbles]

I didn't link any articles? Only a fun video explaining why copying is not theft.

You also can't "borrow" an idea because you can't "return" an idea. Copyright abolitionism is the only thing that eliminates this poison from society. We all simply write, sing, act out, etc, our arts on what came before us. Everything is derivative, and literally zero harm is done to a creative if someone copies their work 1:1.

Oh right, I skipped a step, sorry. I looked them up because I don't have the time to multitask a video with my day job. Reading is easier

Anyhow, you're wrong about zero harm, because we live in a capitalist society, and people need to make money in order to literally survive, nevermind anything else. Your position will harm creatives even further than existing IP laws harm them, because you seem to consider their role worthless; that ideas that some inherent abstract thing, and not in fact the result of a skill whereby some people with training and expertise develop better ideas than others. "just copying" a successful book and passing it off as your own directly harms the person who wrote the original book. Because they need money to live, and that's their job.

Now, if you want to pivot to criticising this requirement of capitalism on us as a society, and how that impacts creativity, go for it. But even in a post-scarcity society, "stealing" is still going to exist as a concept.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Non-copyrighted art. Art that isn't restricted by copyright in any way. If you're asking the philosophical question "what is art?", then I have no answer, as all art is subjective.

People make your version of "real art" all the time. We used to have it on our refrigerator while the kids were growing up. Anyone can make all the art they want based on anything or theme anytime. Copyright just concerns making money or gaining public benefit off other people's art or work without permission.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Oh right, I skipped a step, sorry. I looked them up because I don't have the time to multitask a video with my day job. Reading is easier

Anyhow, you're wrong about zero harm, because we live in a capitalist society, and people need to make money in order to literally survive, nevermind anything else. Your position will harm creatives even further than existing IP laws harm them, because you seem to consider their role worthless; that ideas that some inherent abstract thing, and not in fact the result of a skill whereby some people with training and expertise develop better ideas than others. "just copying" a successful book and passing it off as your own directly harms the person who wrote the original book. Because they need money to live, and that's their job.

Now, if you want to pivot to criticising this requirement of capitalism on us as a society, and how that impacts creativity, go for it. But even in a post-scarcity society, "stealing" is still going to exist as a concept.

The video is a short song that's less than two minutes. Probably shorter than what you did to look up and read things lol

What's blowing my mind right now is the idea that somehow, if someone is able to write a better Harry Potter and sell their story to fans unmolested by copyright, that it's copyright that protects them when it aborts the project entirely by its sheer existence. At what point do copyright owners "own the idea" about magical schools in Scotland? How about magical schools? How about characters named Harry Potter but in a scifi world?

Any IP law kills any creative's actual intent, regardless of an effort to sell it or not.

 

[Hygro]

Dollars are (theoretically) backed by something. If people just copy money, they are attempting to manufacture representative tokens for real goods that don't exist. The problem isn't the copying, it's the fact they're copying tokens that (theoretically) represent finite resources. Ergo, when they redeem copied dollars in the form of buying real goods, it's a form of fraud. The only reason governments are allowed to copy money is because they have a monopoly on force, allowing them to devalue currencies as desired. If you became Supreme Dictator, you could copy dollars until your heart's sated and the value is crashed. However, you can make an infinite amount of copies of a book, a video, a movie, etc, and the original still exists in an untainted form because movies/music/books are not mediums of currency exchange but forms of art. Art which is only profitable in the way it is because of draconian copyright which is dangled over the heads of creatives as if it's their only salvation from starving.

Comparing copying dollars to copying ideas is about as apples-to-oranges as you can get, I think.

But this doesn’t. For a few reasons:

He’s not copying your money, he’s copying your account, which allows him to control your money, no duplication. We don’t want that. I’m with you, I have an information yearns to be free ideology. But it’s super complicated, so the fun part is figuring how to address these complications. The debate is on how to carve perimeters. That’s why I’m “arguing” with Lexicus, our positions are basically the same zoomed out at all.

Second money suuuuuuuuuuuuper does mean anything backed by physical resources. It’s backing is taxes, contract enforcement, that’s about it. Convenience to from those base cases does of the lifting. But your money isn’t a guarantee on resources at all. Not on its own.

Right now money is printed by congressional acts, by central banking privilege, and commercial banking privilege.

There is nothing to stop you from printing your own money, it’s just to get people to accept it requires them to demand your money. The USA does this through taxes. Chase Bank does this through contracts ultimately enforced by US courts, and knowing you’ll take their loan to pay USA taxes, or sell your loan money to someone who will.

That’s it, that’s the backing of money. It’s an idea agreed upon by a political body that enforces it by demanding the same currency back with force.

 

[Gorbles]

The video is a short song that's less than two minutes. Probably shorter than what you did to look up and read things lol

What's blowing my mind right now is the idea that somehow, if someone is able to write a better Harry Potter and sell their story to fans unmolested by copyright, that it's copyright that protects them when it aborts the project entirely by its sheer existence. At what point do copyright owners "own the idea" about magical schools in Scotland? How about magical schools? How about characters named Harry Potter but in a scifi world?

Any IP law kills any creative's actual intent, regardless of an effort to sell it or not.

I read far better than I sit through and watch any video. It's hard to explain, bit of a derail. All I can say is trust me, I guess

But your argument keeps changing. I understand the abuses of copyright law, IP, patents, etc. I understand how it can be used to shutdown projects that it arguably shouldn't be able to. I understand it can be used in frivolous and needless ways, as a way to exercise power.

I'm not arguing with any of that. I am arguing, specifically, with the concept that because all work is derivative, stealing it is impossible. Because that is far wider-ranging than simply IP rights or copyright in general.

I am a fan of simple solutions wherever possible. But like Hygro is talking about, this stuff touches on a number of super complex subjects. They can't be handwaved away.