• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    And that is bad why…?

    Intellectual property, the sheer concept that an idea, or color, or shape can be owned at all is absurd if you really think about it. There is certainly room for a fair compromise of appropriate and proportional compensation for the actual inventors or creators of something, but our current system of intellectual property and patents is silly and hostile to human nature.

    • Fleur_@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      No IP laws encourage people to keep new inventions/technologies/creative works secret so that they can solely profit off of it. By ensuring a period where people are guaranteed the benefits of their creations society can coerce them into contributing to the collective knowledge base.

      I think 5yrs is a suitable timeframe for copyright. Incentives sharing while also ensuring ideas can be promptly built off of and discorouging companies to hoard intellectual property for as long as possible while they drain every last dollar out.

    • andMoonsValue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Current IP law may be too over reaching but I do like the idea that if an artist writes a song, or paints a picture others can’t just make copies and sell it. Similarly, if someone makes some invention its nice that there is an incentive to publish the technology openly for everyone to understand how it works, and in return they get to profit from their discovery for a set number of years.

      Some design patents and patent tolls are obviously bad, but I think for the most part its a decent system. What compromise would you propose?