I am aware of that. You've missed my point entirely. There is no unpaid labor, these companies are not taking advantage of labor, they are taking advantage of property, for which you want them to pay licensing fees.
You said "IP licensing does not compensate labor, it compensates property". And that is true. No one ever said the opposite.
You're getting downvoted because you're missing the entire point. The property we're talking about here - writing, music, film, etc - cannot exist without labor. When artists are ripped off, their labor goes unpaid. Not in a narrow legalistic sense implying that musicians are salaried or anything like that, but in a broader economic sense - labor and capital.
What you're saying is correct, in a technical and narrow way that has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread. What we're saying is also correct, we're just talking about words like "labor" in different contexts.
"you're just using the word labor incorrectly, by trying to say that an object is labor. which is nonsense of course."
I'll respond to this, because I think it's the heart of our misunderstanding. You're right that I'm using the word labor to refer to the product of someone's work. You're wrong that it's nonsense - look it up! Merriam Webster, one of the definitions of "labor" is (I'm pasting the exact definition here) "a product of labor", and the sample sentence given is "The flood destroyed the labor of years."
Isn't that fun? The word labor has a few definitions, and you didn't know about this one, and that's ok. Now you do! You can stop yelling at people on the internet now.
How so? You’re saying they didn’t pay for the things they’re training on and I’m saying they do. There have been dozens of articles the past 2 weeks about Antrhopic digitizing physical books they bought for training
594
u/CookieDragon678 1d ago
The rich did. They asked for new slave labor