Saturday, November 14, 2020

Copyright is Rebellion Against Gnon.

If it were truly unprofitable for a printing press to make copies of a work, for whatever reason, it should not have been produced. Unprofitability is one especially clear way Gnon tells you something is a bad idea. Copyright is contrary to natural law.

You may have noticed that in the present day, publishers lie all the time. I suggest to you: in past years, publishers lied all the time. In reality copyright was never necessary for profitability, but instead a successful attempt to seize an unnatural, artificial, human monopoly.

Thaumaturgically, copyright is the banning of an act of creation. Guess what kind of person* is attracted to this sort of act.

Correcting the pricing is trivial. It does not take a world-spanning genius to solve this puzzle. If selling an artifact is also to sell the blueprint for that artifact, then price the blueprint into the artifact, genius. Have you considered stockpiling the artifact before it's released, thus expanding the first-mover premium? That's two, from a dilettante. An expert should be able to hand you a buffet of a dozen solutions.

Property rights are founded in security. When printing presses were rare it wasn't entirely unfeasible to secure every press. Still stupid, but not entirely stupid.

A computer is functionally a printing press for every kind of data. Not only does everyone have one, most have several. Attempting to secure them all is ludicrous on a good day. Rub this point in.: every Twitter account is a publisher; a combined printing press and broadcaster.


parisian said...

For your Gnonish Pleasure:

Replying to
... All the 'Coomer' stuff is just Gnon reduced to scrawling public restroom graffiti.
9:51 PM · Nov 15, 2020·Twitter Web App

Replying to

Phrontis(eso)teric Coomistery, Dominion of the Tally
Marks below the (Phone) Number,
I "fudge" some to disparage him,
The spurned lover that I was


A bit more composed after a fairly long prosaic period, not to put too fine a point on it... And look what unexpected, delectable poetics it stimulated and inspired in one 'EuleYann'. "The spurned lover that I was" reminded me instantly of A.E. Housman's poem (which is spoken at the end of the masterful Australian film Walkabout), that begins "Into my heart an air that kills" and ends with "The happy highways where I went...and cannot come again", and it's the ending's two lines that are encapsulated within the single end-line "The spurned lover that I was". The "I 'fudge' some to disparage him" is in keeping with the restroom graffiti as "reduced Gnon", and although "sauce reduction" is also dangerously suggested, one ought best glide over that unless it can be dismissed even more efficiently. I also like in "The spurned lover that I was" the possibility of a "lover that is no longer spurned"--not sure that's been done before, it's usually consigned to the dust-bin of trauma or thought to "no longer matter".

Of course, you may see it differently, and I'd definitely be interested.

parisian said...

I'm fine with so-called name-fagging, just thought you wouldn't like it. Always thought it was usually a mark of distinction, but once name-fagged at 8chan (only time I wrote there), and got cussed out.) I mainly didn't like that I didn't deliberately do this. Even the slightest imperfection in any process is making me furious these days, because I'm most often perfect--you're a good, uncompromising coach.

There are all these signs of jouissance with funny threads at Nick's about 'the Turkey God' and 'Santa Claus in China' and some oozing girl defending herself, that she "wants to simp, because it's Mr. NICK LAND!" Very cute. Gotta say, I think Saturday was the Day of the Swan, and Andrew Joyce (among others, surely) put all of the Trump/Biden back into Zionist context that was momentarily lost due to this huge surge of female and rank-and-file emotions. It's a fucking good piece. [ADDED: says so too, based on Trump just driving through to the golf course, instead of speaking. Makes sense.

Also reminds me in some cockamamie way of Deleuze's strange takes on sadism as literal criminality and masochism as some kind of contract for someone suffering that can be reversed and forced on the other, and that's when the jouissance comes in: But it still proves the inferiority of masochists, because they chose to enter in such contract, but as if to cultivate resentment due to their inability to experience pleasure in any way other than vicariously..and Deleuze doesn't call the dominatrix (or what-have-you) a 'sadist', as in garden-variety S & M, so that's probably why most don't cite that particular Deleuze tome. What he says about sadism is probably the reason: A Deleuzian sadist doesn't ask for permission. I don't think that means there can't be more than one excited sadist--otherwise you get only grey lesbian-coloured creatures, some who pretend to dominate, some who pretend to submit. The conundrum for me is that I am constitutionally incapable of seeing Zionists as *Proper Sadists* as individuals, and that's the only time it's forbidden enough to be interesting. But it is very true that they are therefore able to do it collectively, and it's incredible that they are really doing it, and have been for some time. I just have to avert my eyes as long as I can.I would never set foot in Israel.

TheDividualist said...

I could not comment on your recent Moldbug series because your prose is more zipped than it usually is, like mathemathicians with their goddamned one-letter variable names, it has an information density too high for my poor low IQ mind who thinks circle_radius is a good variable name and r is a bad variable name.

But this one I can parse. To put it succintly, YES. Even when I was a idealistic libertarian, I was an idealistic libertarian of the anti-IP sort. Because

1) anyone who argues that piracy is a theft is an idiot who cannot differentiate between an imposed cost (inventory loss) vs. losing a *potential* sale

2) we need property rights because scarcity. things that can be copied at a negligible cost are not scarce.

3) the fashion industry has no copyright, only trademark. that means you can make an exact copy of a Levis 501. You just cannot call it Levis 501. trademark is a good rule because lying is bad. IP is a bad rule. what is the result of all this? well 100-200 years ago a lot of humans suffered from war, pestilence, lack of food and lack of warm clothing, even kids going to school barefoot. and the last item is off the list now. there is a surplus of clothing. nobody, literally all over the planet, goes barefoot or shirtless. unless they want to, because they live in a hot place. sounds like that fight was won? by the clothes industry. who have no copyright or IP, just trademark.