6 ms·

This is a very good example of why so-called "intellectual property" (and "private property" as a sacred right) needs to be abolished entirely. It's just a tool

This is a very good example of why so-called "intellectual property" (and "private property" as a sacred right) needs to be abolished entirely. It's just a tool of social control that prevents people from sharing/studying things, and makes people die from diseases that we know how to cure (pharmaceutical patents).

mkl 6y ago
Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc. I think the copyright term lengths are currently insanely long, so I can see good arguments for shortening them considerably, but I think abolishing copyright entirely would do far more harm than good. Software patents on the other hand could probably be abolished without much ill effect (as they already don't exist in most of the world).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pmlnr 6y ago
  IP is a product of the 20th century United States. Books were written before that, music was composed before that, paintings were painted before that. There's also this software type called Free (Libre) Software.
  - mkl 6y ago
    Copyright existed before that, and copying was way harder. Now we have instant perfect digital copies. Free software is great, but most software is not Free, and most companies/organisations that use Free software don't contribute to its development.
    - southerntofu 6y ago
      > most companies/organisations that use Free software don't contribute to its development That is a big problem. But the underlying issue is competition (a pillar of the capitalist system) and we should address that instead of trying to fix surface symptoms. If there were incentives to cooperate for the interest of humanity instead of competing for private profit, there would not be a problem.
      - indymike 6y ago
        "That is a big problem." No, it's actually by design. When I write free software (I don't do it a lot), I don't expect anything of my users. There's no obligation on the user, and there's no obligation on from the author. That is the whole point. Other people may have other motivations, but for me, it's always been, ah, maybe this will help someone else out... Also, a very important point: cooperation and competition are not opposed to one another. They are equally valid and often cooperation arises from competition.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc. Copyright didn't exist forever, yet we have music and books from before then. Shakespeare was before copyright. Most of the best creatives create for the joy of creation, not for money. Like open source.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    To be fair, when digital copies arrived at essentially zero cost, it was a huge paradigm shift.
  - mkl 6y ago
    I used the word "most" for a reason. Not "all". Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. Musicians made money from performances too. Most famous historical painters and composers had wealthy benefactors that enabled their work. Creative people obviously enjoy creating, but professionals are doing it to earn a living. Look at the books on your bookshelf and the movies and TV shows you watch. How many were made purely for joy with no expectation of making money? Maybe some, but not most.
    - ryanbrunner 6y ago
      I think in a world without copyright, the ways that creative people earn a living would certainly change, but I'm not sure it would mean it would be impossible to be successful doing those things. Musicians already earn a large portion of their income from things other than sales of their albums - whether it's touring / merch / advertising deals. All of that could exist in a world without copyright. The equivalent might not exist yet for movies, but in a world where movies were freely distributable, someone would find a way to still make it a business. Maybe the giant blockbusters would go away, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay.
      - SyzygistSix 6y ago
        The argument about musicians rings a bit hollow, as most musicians nowadays make their living as performers and shopkeeps, which I do not think is good for the state of the art at all.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I think the best of software would still be written, and would probably get more resources towards it
  - mkl 6y ago
    Maybe, but I think way more things would turn into web services instead of offline apps, and that that's where most of the resources would go. Subscriptions everywhere, and slow all-code-on-server interfaces. And there would be draconian contracts to try and prevent developers from walking out the door with the source code.
    - ryanbrunner 6y ago
      I think that's more or less happening with or without copyright. I don't have a single piece of standalone paid software installed on my computer (either it's open source and free, or it's something that connects to a service that I do pay for)
refurb 6y ago
Well my young artist friend is screwed if any random person can copy his work. But hey, we don't need art, right?
- logicchains 6y ago
  That's why we don't have any great art from before the 1700s when copyright law was first introduced. Well, maybe one or two artists, like Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo and Rembrant, but the quality of their output was vastly inferior to all the many amazing works being produced nowadays. /s
- lordnacho 6y ago
  Artists get paid for building a brand around their creations, not for making loads of pieces of the same thing. If someone were to copy one of his paintings, it would clearly not be of the same lineage.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    And if a company decides to adorn their brand with that art?
  - hoppyhoppy2 6y ago
    >Artists get paid for building a brand around their creations, not for making loads of pieces of the same thing. I think many novelists, filmmakers, photographers and songwriters would disagree. Piracy can affect their ability to earn a living from their work. Few regular people care about the "lineage" of their ebooks, digital photos, audio streams, video files, or mp3s as long as it's convenient and allows them to enjoy the artist's work.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  Of course we do need art. But most artists are not protected by copyright, quite the contrary! They get extorted by producers and other mafia-like organizations taking their rights away and "eating" all their income as administrative fees. According to official SACEM statistics, 66% of their registered artists (who pay membership dues) don't receive a single cent over an entire year. The Cour des Comptes (highest french authority for public spending) has published detailed analysis about the copyright mafia and how their 6-digit salaries really don't help artists make a living. How to make a living is an issue in all of society, not just for artists. We should address this problem globally by making sure wealth is redistributed according to everyone's needs.
userbinator 6y ago
I prefer to call it "imaginary property", although I do not agree with you on "private property".

mkl 6y ago

Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc. I think the copyright term lengths are currently insanely long, so I can see good arguments for shortening them considerably, but I think abolishing copyright entirely would do far more harm than good. Software patents on the other hand could probably be abolished without much ill effect (as they already don't exist in most of the world).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pmlnr 6y ago
IP is a product of the 20th century United States. Books were written before that, music was composed before that, paintings were painted before that. There's also this software type called Free (Libre) Software.
- mkl 6y ago
  Copyright existed before that, and copying was way harder. Now we have instant perfect digital copies. Free software is great, but most software is not Free, and most companies/organisations that use Free software don't contribute to its development.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > most companies/organisations that use Free software don't contribute to its development That is a big problem. But the underlying issue is competition (a pillar of the capitalist system) and we should address that instead of trying to fix surface symptoms. If there were incentives to cooperate for the interest of humanity instead of competing for private profit, there would not be a problem.
    - indymike 6y ago
      "That is a big problem." No, it's actually by design. When I write free software (I don't do it a lot), I don't expect anything of my users. There's no obligation on the user, and there's no obligation on from the author. That is the whole point. Other people may have other motivations, but for me, it's always been, ah, maybe this will help someone else out... Also, a very important point: cooperation and competition are not opposed to one another. They are equally valid and often cooperation arises from competition.
logicchains 6y ago
>Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc. Copyright didn't exist forever, yet we have music and books from before then. Shakespeare was before copyright. Most of the best creatives create for the joy of creation, not for money. Like open source.
- Tepix 6y ago
  To be fair, when digital copies arrived at essentially zero cost, it was a huge paradigm shift.
- mkl 6y ago
  I used the word "most" for a reason. Not "all". Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. Musicians made money from performances too. Most famous historical painters and composers had wealthy benefactors that enabled their work. Creative people obviously enjoy creating, but professionals are doing it to earn a living. Look at the books on your bookshelf and the movies and TV shows you watch. How many were made purely for joy with no expectation of making money? Maybe some, but not most.
  - ryanbrunner 6y ago
    I think in a world without copyright, the ways that creative people earn a living would certainly change, but I'm not sure it would mean it would be impossible to be successful doing those things. Musicians already earn a large portion of their income from things other than sales of their albums - whether it's touring / merch / advertising deals. All of that could exist in a world without copyright. The equivalent might not exist yet for movies, but in a world where movies were freely distributable, someone would find a way to still make it a business. Maybe the giant blockbusters would go away, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay.
    - SyzygistSix 6y ago
      The argument about musicians rings a bit hollow, as most musicians nowadays make their living as performers and shopkeeps, which I do not think is good for the state of the art at all.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
I think the best of software would still be written, and would probably get more resources towards it
- mkl 6y ago
  Maybe, but I think way more things would turn into web services instead of offline apps, and that that's where most of the resources would go. Subscriptions everywhere, and slow all-code-on-server interfaces. And there would be draconian contracts to try and prevent developers from walking out the door with the source code.
  - ryanbrunner 6y ago
    I think that's more or less happening with or without copyright. I don't have a single piece of standalone paid software installed on my computer (either it's open source and free, or it's something that connects to a service that I do pay for)

refurb 6y ago

Well my young artist friend is screwed if any random person can copy his work. But hey, we don't need art, right?

logicchains 6y ago
That's why we don't have any great art from before the 1700s when copyright law was first introduced. Well, maybe one or two artists, like Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo and Rembrant, but the quality of their output was vastly inferior to all the many amazing works being produced nowadays. /s
lordnacho 6y ago
Artists get paid for building a brand around their creations, not for making loads of pieces of the same thing. If someone were to copy one of his paintings, it would clearly not be of the same lineage.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  And if a company decides to adorn their brand with that art?
- hoppyhoppy2 6y ago
  >Artists get paid for building a brand around their creations, not for making loads of pieces of the same thing. I think many novelists, filmmakers, photographers and songwriters would disagree. Piracy can affect their ability to earn a living from their work. Few regular people care about the "lineage" of their ebooks, digital photos, audio streams, video files, or mp3s as long as it's convenient and allows them to enjoy the artist's work.
southerntofu 6y ago
Of course we do need art. But most artists are not protected by copyright, quite the contrary! They get extorted by producers and other mafia-like organizations taking their rights away and "eating" all their income as administrative fees. According to official SACEM statistics, 66% of their registered artists (who pay membership dues) don't receive a single cent over an entire year. The Cour des Comptes (highest french authority for public spending) has published detailed analysis about the copyright mafia and how their 6-digit salaries really don't help artists make a living. How to make a living is an issue in all of society, not just for artists. We should address this problem globally by making sure wealth is redistributed according to everyone's needs.

userbinator 6y ago

I prefer to call it "imaginary property", although I do not agree with you on "private property".