Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’.
Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’.
You're viewing a single thread.
125 comments
-
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.
-
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?
-
Copyrights aren't for you, or for that artist that writes a song, or paints a picture. They exists to maintain profits of large corporations. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it "protects the little person", but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.
As such, I would like to extend this to 'delete all copyright law'.
-
How about requiring IPs to belong to a specific person, with a set expiry of say 10 years? Corporations wouldn't be able to own IP, only pay for the usage rights (for the first 10 years).
-
This is just wrong. If you write a book, you own that book. Many people sell art.
What this would do is make it so that creating isn't profitable for people. Why write a book that people can just take for free. So creatives won't be able to make money from creating, so they'll do something else.
This sounds like a dystopian future where everyone is a factory worker, and people are cheering it on at the thought of "free stuff."
Is the IP system broken? Hell yes. But the answer isn't just to get rid of it. The legal system is broken, would we just get rid of laws too? Since they protect the rich, they're just bad?
-
This is just wrong. If you write a book, you own that book. Many people sell art.
If you want to publish a book, you have to contact a publisher, and they will acquire the rights to publish your book. If you want to publish an album, you have to give up your rights to the music publisher. You don't really "own" your media at that point.
Also, compared to the number of artists out there, many people don't sell art. A select few sell art, and the rest are broke.
-
This argument falls apart with the very basic concept of self publishing which many do.
It also ignores that you get a deal with that publisher and still get paid. Without IP they don't have to pay you.
Come on people...
-
-
-
-
-
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
-
-
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.
-
Say the numbers of pi long enough and eventually you'll commit a federal crime.
-
125 comments