Ah, you’ve mistaken capitalism (which had been developing for centuries earlier) with 18th century liberal economic theory, which is not its foundation but instead a rough ex-post-facto rationalization for large parts of the way it had developed.
What capitalism is, though, is the systematic prioritization of the interests of the mercantile (which became, as legal property rights coalesced around their interest, capitalist) class as the organizing principle of society.
LITERALLY NO ONE DOES, or SHOULD, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCE. People are always going to buy and sell things. All the other stuff is details on exactly what the rules about doing this should be.
>an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[0]
>which had been developing for centuries earlier
The use of capital has existed for thousands of years already. One could make the case that there is no such thing as capitalism but rather the desire for the realization of interests. The ruling class "before capitalism" was also capitalist: the lords' power was derived from their capital- the land. The only real difference between the mercantile class and the landed gentry was the respect they commanded when it comes down to it.
There's no actual "free market" in the way you're thinking of. Thumbs will always be on scales.
I don't follow this argument. Principles can't be replicated perfectly in reality, therefore they don't exist? By that logic, there is no actual "copyright" as some people will be copying material and getting away with it.
>the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing.
This is proven wrong through any single example to the contrary. One example is ticketed book readings by the original author, or a ticketed concert by the original band. Many ways to capture income for generating content without copyright enforcement mechanisms.
>what's going on with Stable Diffusion and Copilot (and perhaps Spotify and Google before them) -- the people who own the machinery end up owning and controlling EVERYTHING, and the creator gets nothing.
Is this an argument for or against copyright? Does Google get most of its operating revenue within nations without copyright law? Or is the argument they are violating copyright law and that's why the creator isn't getting anything?
And there are counter examples, where a creator sells/relinquishes copyright (often because it's the only way for them to end up with anything) and ends up losing total access to income streams they could have had if copyright didn't exist, and the machinery owner ends up owning everything and locking the creator out through copyright law. The confusion also lies in the fact creator and copyright holder is not the same thing.
Again, for better or worse --without IP, the primary beneficiaries of "creativity" become the distributors. Opposing this is the whole point of copyright, and thus why it should defended in theory and heavily reformed in practice.
