You must log in or register to comment.
I am hard side eyeing everyone who are pro abolishment of IP laws. You are either mindless consumers who have never spent time and effort creating anything yourselves your entire lives, or you haven’t thought this through.
I hope for the latter.
I have spent time and effort creating things myself. Still think ip law is not entirely accomplishing what it should, which is protecting the interests of people producing intellectual works, preferably while they can still reap the benefits of said work and are not financially/socially stable. It seems it’s basically working backwards, great for inheritors to make millions by doing nothing except owning some IPs but terrible at protecting the people who actually need it.
I also know a few people holding some important patents, and I guess the patent system is alright in comparison, at least in France, since it did actually protect their work while also allowing others to use it fairly and improve on it.
There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to IP laws, but abolishing them entirely is not the win some people think it is.
Swedish (For the user name)?
I think you should have rights but not like it is today with stupid 100 years after authors death.
You can also protect the creation, without having laws banning people using it. Like if you buy a painting in france, you can’t burn it or “disrespect” (sorry, can’t find a better word) it.
There’s nothing stopping Dorsey from releasing all of his IP under a public license. Same with Elon who jumped on this bandwagon.
I hate agreeing with a CEO.
Don’t worry, he’s probably being disingenuous and likely has ulterior motives.
Yes please
Yes, now that rich people want to break the law to create AI we should just make it legal for them.
Yes. Because individuals stand to gain far, FAR more than corporations if IP law disappeared.
No, this has enormous implications to break the monopolies of many companies and supply chains. Companies like Broadcom and Qualcomm only exist because of their anticompetitive IP nonsense. This is everything anyone could ever dream of for Right to Repair. It stops Nintendo’s nonsense. It kills Shimano’s anti competitive bicycle monopoly.
Every frivolous nonsense thing has been patented. Patents are not at all what they were intended to be. They are primary weapons of the super rich to prevent anyone from entering and competing in the market. Patents are given for the most vague nonsense so that any competitive product can be drug through years of legal nonsense just to exist. It is not about infringement of novel ideas. It is about creating an enormous cost barrier to protect profiteering from stagnation by milking every possible penny from the cheapest outdated junk.
IP is also used for things like criminal professors creating exorbitantly priced textbook scams to extort students.
All of that goes away if IP is ditched. The idea that some author has a right to profit from something for life is nonsense; the same with art. No one makes a fortune by copying others unless they are simply better artists. Your skills are your protection and those that lack the skills have no right to use their wealth to suppress others. The premise of IP is largely based on an era when access to publishing and production was extremely limited and required large investments. That is not the case any more; that is not the world we live in. Now those IP tools are used for exactly the opposite of their original purpose and suppressing art and innovation.
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.
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.
If Jack Dorsey proposes something and Elon Musk agrees I’d be wary to see it as a good idea.
I’m big on copy left, but I agree
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?
Lets just delete the greedy!
This is not about being greedy. This is about incentives. IP enables billions of jobs.
There are only 3.5 billion jobs worldwide. A good amount of those work for the government, in the army, in the public sector, etc…
I’d be surprised if it manages to get above a billion to be honest. Remember that copyright is a fairly recent invention.
And makes research investment-worthy.
Exactly. Without IP, scientists and researchers could only make a living through government funding. And that means governments also fully control the research and development. A free market needs IP. It’s fundamental.
This is already the only way scientists make a living
You’re making this argument via FOSS.
No
This is literally just so they can scoop up everything for AI. You don’t get to just do whatever you please with someones work.
Also doesn’t the GPL use IP law for enforcement of copy left?
Yes but the spirit of FOSS is clearly anti-copyright and a non copyright world would be preferable.
You don’t get to just do whatever you please with someones work.
The FOSS positions is that you should if you are not preventing that someone doing what he wants as well (or anybody else), which is the case with IP unlike real property.
It’s also how the world has worked for millennia, copyright and other IP law is relatively new phenomenon and even in the time it has existed it has not been as well enforced or accepted by society as say the concept of physical property.
AI is a great chance for commercial interests to push pro-copyright positions with a narrative of big bad tech corpos (absolutely true) vs little artist guy (bullshit, it’s big bad media corpos). I remember they tried to portray copyright and associated enforcement tooling (DMCA etc) as a solution to revenge porn, to rehabilitate it’s image.
IP = Imaginary Property
People suggesting this are shortsighted and naive. Removing IP means that a lot of industries will no longer have the incentive to be innovative or creative as using other’s ideas is much cheaper. There are some industries that are the important backbone of many other industries that completely rely on IP. This will hamper productivity of our society in the long term.
If you copy everyone else you’re not going to be profiting much, as your product isn’t competitive. You have to keep iterating on an idea to stay ahead of the competition.
IP law lets companies stop innovating after they’ve come up with a product, because other companies cannot directly compete using the same or a similar design.
Did Android phones stop innovating because Apple did a smartphone first?
a lot of industries will no longer have the incentive to be innovative or creative as using other’s ideas is much cheaper
That’s already what they do, it’s just those people are on their payroll. Industries don’t create, they absorb and proliferate.
