Reddit reviews Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?

> So what, what's your point?

My point is that your argument is nonsense. The most you seem capable of saying is that those who disagree with you are stupid.

Namely, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against intellectual property (in its entirety) that have nothing to do with legitimizing the pirating of media content. But you seem incapable of comprehending this fact, so you lump everything together in nice and neat little bins that are easy targets of your incessant lambasting.

> I'm aware that there are people who believe that. I'm also aware that there are people who believe a rape victim should have to marry their rapist.

This is at best an implied false equivalency. It is at worse disingenuous.

> Also, I find it interesting that I've never once, in the wild, encountered someone who does not pirate media who has been particularly vocal on that topic about media. I have met people who share those views in regard to things like medicine and treatments. But I've only heard this bullshit from people who pirate media.

Wait, you mean you've never heard someone who doesn't care about pirating media talk about the legitimacy of pirating media? What a wonder! Truly this means that any such position is nonsense! (The much more likely answer is that talking about legitimacy of pirating media is a lightning rod for people whose best retort is, "you're a dumbass.")

You might want to tug on that "medicine and treatments" thread a bit more. It's kind of important. And that ain't the only thing either. Think agriculture.

> Plus, looking at it as "legally enforced by governments" is just one way of looking at it.

It's a fact of reality. Intellectual property is enforced via courts, which are (in today's world) run by governments.

> Another way of looking at is protecting the people who create that media for a living. If they worked 40 hours to create a couple of minutes of content, I bet those people would probably think differently about those protections.

I've worked for years on things that I've given away without let, lien or obligation. (And I don't just mean that in the abstract sense. People actually use these things.)

I know this doesn't jive well with your mental model of the world, so please, feel free to respond dutifully with a personal attack.

> Of course, the retort to all of that will be that it's big companies that have the rights to this stuff and not the artists and if the money was going to the artists, they'd treat it differently. It's bullshit.

No, that has nothing to do with my point.

> I steal shit. Just own it.

You've completely and utterly missed my point. My point is that you start with an assumption that's not necessarily justified; namely that intellectual property is property, and that it can even be stolen in the first place.