4 ms·

No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection

maxharris 6y ago
As everything gets automated and jobs become scarce, one of the few remaining ways to make money is to create intellectual property. So I think there should be more IP, not less.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n63/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
  - btrettel 6y ago
    Generally, I don't like when people reply with only links to someone else unless that person specifically requested a link or links. What the second poster intends to communicate through this is not always clear in my experience. I assume that you believe basic income is a better solution than intellectual property. But I'm not seeing why you posted the first link.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Veblen notes that engineering automation progressively transfers income from labour to technologists to capitalists. Absent a shared wealth approach -- a national capital allotment being one form of a UBI -- you'll have to pursue ever more tortured, and toxic, definitions of property, enclosures, and ham-fisted and draconian exclusionary regimes. If your creatives and labourers are assured sufficient consistent income, IP becomes a ... patently ... irrellevant burdenous obstruction. Which it is.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Yet for most imaginary property, we observe that it tends to be sold away from its creator, and coalesces in concentrated ownership pools. And without distributed ownership, this state of affairs does not end up generating sustained income for individual creatives themselves, but rather just adds to overall rent-seeking that everyone needs to find increasingly-scarce income to survive under. The solution to the need for less human labor is to simply stop insisting that we need so much human labor! Full time employment should be well under 20 hours per week by now, the labor force basically doubling due to women working. Instead we have a monetary policy that deliberately inflates the currency to keep everyone working, resulting in a load of bullshit jobs such as financial paperwork generator or imaginary property administrator.

As everything gets automated and jobs become scarce, one of the few remaining ways to make money is to create intellectual property. So I think there should be more IP, not less.

dredmorbius 6y ago
https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n63/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
- btrettel 6y ago
  Generally, I don't like when people reply with only links to someone else unless that person specifically requested a link or links. What the second poster intends to communicate through this is not always clear in my experience. I assume that you believe basic income is a better solution than intellectual property. But I'm not seeing why you posted the first link.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Veblen notes that engineering automation progressively transfers income from labour to technologists to capitalists. Absent a shared wealth approach -- a national capital allotment being one form of a UBI -- you'll have to pursue ever more tortured, and toxic, definitions of property, enclosures, and ham-fisted and draconian exclusionary regimes. If your creatives and labourers are assured sufficient consistent income, IP becomes a ... patently ... irrellevant burdenous obstruction. Which it is.
mindslight 6y ago
Yet for most imaginary property, we observe that it tends to be sold away from its creator, and coalesces in concentrated ownership pools. And without distributed ownership, this state of affairs does not end up generating sustained income for individual creatives themselves, but rather just adds to overall rent-seeking that everyone needs to find increasingly-scarce income to survive under. The solution to the need for less human labor is to simply stop insisting that we need so much human labor! Full time employment should be well under 20 hours per week by now, the labor force basically doubling due to women working. Instead we have a monetary policy that deliberately inflates the currency to keep everyone working, resulting in a load of bullshit jobs such as financial paperwork generator or imaginary property administrator.