Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind!

lemmy.world Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind! - Lemmy.world

I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants correspon...

Hey mateys!

I made a post at /c/libertarianism about the abolition of IP. Maybe some of you will find it interesting.

Please answer in the other community so that all the knowledge is in one place and easier to discover.

You're viewing a single thread.

124 comments

Abolishing IP simply means the deepest pocket steals the market for everything. If you don't think Amazon can out produce and market your minuscule budget, you're insane.
- They still wouldn't though. Think about it this way:
  Amazon paid big bucks for the rights to make a lord of the rings show and did a shit job for the amount of money they spent.
  The last season of GoT spent more than every other season and couldn't touch the early seasons in terms of quality.
  Money =/= good art
  Might as well at least make it so the big spenders can't hold the IP hostage.
  FWIW I do actually think IP is a good idea but it should only last like 5 years tops. Maybe longer for industrial patents/inventions. This "Life of the author + X decades" stuff is horseshit.
  
  FWIW I do actually think IP is a good idea but it should only last like 5 years tops
  If I'm not mistaken research has concluded that the optimal IP duration is 14 years. Even if it's triple your duration it would mean that the current IP laws are objectively shit.
  
  They've done objective research on this?! Why aren't we following the fuckin science? We're discussing the rules and duration when we should be discuss how to get it past the corpos and into implemented law.
  
  Nothing good is going to happen until the working class is represented in government.
  But the scope of this discussion is how OP should feel about IP, which assumes they have a say first.
  
  Money =/= good art
  Might as well at least make it so the big spenders can’t hold the IP hostage.
  Except it means they can encroach on your ideas without your consent... Money may not mean good art... But Money definitely means getting better talent in house which can make good art.
- In reality it doesn't work out that way though. What actually happens is that the deepest pockets are the ones who can patent everything under the sun, and who can buy out all the poor copyright holders at bargain prices.
  In theory it can work, if there are sufficient regulations on what can be patented, and anti-trust policies. But again, in reality the holders of capital rewrite the laws in their favor because money is liquid and industries are porous.
  These sorts of laws favor the wealthy, at least in practice.
- Maybe capitalism doesn't work, except for the richest capitalists?
- Don't they already do that, I've seen a couple articles about things people sell on Amazon getting copied and sold as Amazon basics and the person going into near bankruptcy trying to prove their IP in court.
  
  That doesn't mean we should surrender and take away the only tool those people have to fight Amazon.
  
  A tool that could need some sharpening. I'm all for much shorter but much stricter, I think that will help smaller ip holders more.
- I thought IP existed to encourage the creation of more inventions and books by reducing free riders (like us). Why does it prevent the deepest pockets from stealing the market for everything? What would that look like?

124 comments