4 ms·
> Copyright law should be to protect IP theft. If you want to fix copyright, you need to realize it's a complex matter with lots of different actors and confli
by josteink 11y ago
> Copyright law should be to protect IP theft.
If you want to fix copyright, you need to realize it's a complex matter with lots of different actors and conflicting interests. Thus you will need to be able to discuss it accurately, to ensure people aren't getting a mixed message.
So let me help you out with a starter pack of accurate statements.
Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity.
Violating copyright isn't theft. "IP" is a legal construct to make something fundamentally unnatural (owning an idea) seem natural. "IP" is not real property and it cannot be stolen.
Having firmware for stuff you own being copyrighted and implemented in a way which makes it illegal to tamper with is clearly not in spirit with the way copyright law was written nor its intent.
Having copyright last 100s of year in a time where something is obsolete or outdated in less than 5 years is clearly also at odds with "enriching" society. Nothing is being given back. And if it is, it's long past the period in which it would be useful.
If you want to "fix" copyright, we need to get more focus on the spirit and intent of the law, rather than the "right" part of the law and specifically how big corporations look at it like a blanket-right to profit, for all eternity.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity. What right isn't granted by the government? We like to pretend that rights exist outside of governments, but the only right what a government gives is might makes right.
- marknutter 11y ago> What right isn't granted by the government Inalienable rights (by definition, in fact).
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).
- marknutter 11y agoSecuring rights and granting rights are two completely different things.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoThey are not completely different things, they are related. How can you claim to have a right without some means of keeping it?
- marknutter 11y agoAgain, things can be different but related. An unalienable right can exist without being granted (that's the definition, in fact), and it exists whether or not something is in place to protect it. They are not mutually inclusive.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago>An unalienable right can exist without being granted (that's the definition, in fact), and it exists whether or not something is in place to protect it. Would you mind naming an example? >They are not mutually inclusive. I have a feeling that this may devolve into an argument over trivia, but I hope not.
- 11y ago