4 ms·
I’m not arguing against IP laws in general, I just feel that in many ways they’ve become weighted far too much in favor of IP holders, as a result of IP holders
by mwfunk 8y ago
I’m not arguing against IP laws in general, I just feel that in many ways they’ve become weighted far too much in favor of IP holders, as a result of IP holders having all the money and thus power in Washington. I’m not anti-patent or anti-copyright as a rule. They are legal fictions (an actual term, not a disparaging one) which were created in order to benefit everyone. The fact that they directly benefitted IP holders was not the intention, just a side effect. The goal was to spur creation, which everyone would benefit from, not to protect anyone’s revenue stream.
The rhetoric seems to have shifted to treating IP as a fundamental right. No longer is it a legal fiction to benefit everyone, which had a side effect of allowing a few to reap more profits. Now politicians talk about it as if patent protections, etc. exist solely to protect the IP holders and their revenue, which for some reason is treated as an inalienable right, and not as a compromise for the greater good for everyone. At least that’s my impression as an observer.
- toyg 8y agoThe goal has always been to protect revenue streams - originally, it was the one of printers of music sheets. Most artists have always worked on patrons’ commissions and continue to do so; most musicians made money when performing, and continue to do so; most engineers made money when building things, and continue to do so. Copyright fundamentally benefits a tiny minority of middlemen and investors in the distribution chain, and that’s always been true. It’s one of the distortions of mass-market, where the real money-makers are subjects that have the resources and connections to operate at scale - like in retail.