4 ms·

I see this as a symptom of the stranglehold that money has on policymaking. Creative output is seen not as good because of the positive effects that creative ex

by y7 5y ago

I see this as a symptom of the stranglehold that money has on policymaking. Creative output is seen not as good because of the positive effects that creative expression has on people (both makers and consumers), but because it is a method to make money. The balance then turns towards the "creatives" that have money (Disney), rather than the not-yet-established makers that could re-mix or create derived works based on public domain content.

londons_explore 5y ago
I think there's an element of national economy to it... When country A public domains some IP, then country B might use it to earn money. Whereas if Country A allows company A within the country to keep a license to that IP, total revenue might be lower, but at least it occurred within country A.
- 10000truths 5y ago
  Licenses are just paper. Country A has very little recourse if Country B decides not to honor the intellectual property laws of Country A. The most that can be done is an embargo/sanction, which may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B, depending on the IP in question.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    USA IP laws are stuck to in most of the developed world. There are a lot of trade deals that have the enforcement of IP laws globally as a condition.
    - freejazz 5y ago
      If I am in the US and someone in a foreign country infringes my IP I almost definitely cannot sue them for copyright infringement in the US.
      - londons_explore 5y ago
        You can usually sue them in their country though, which normally will enforce US copyright. You can also prevent them bringing any of their product into the USA through US courts.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      This only applies to IP owned by megacorps with armies of lobbyists.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    > Country A has very little recourse if Country B decides not to honor the intellectual property laws of Country A. The most that can be done is an embargo/sanction, which may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B, depending on the IP in question. Embargo/sanctions are... quite a big deal? They will absolutely never be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B.
    - 10000truths 5y ago
      Not always true. For country B = China, which has has plenty of trading power of its own, embargoes/sanctions can hurt the US, so that stick must be used sparingly. For country B = Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Venezuela, they are already under heavy embargoes/sanctions by the US, so why should they care about US intellectual property laws?
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Greed, plain and simple.
pibechorro 5y ago
Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. Any system that does not heavily accept and model itself against the potential for corruption is naive. If its not trustless, decentralized and emergent from the bottom up it doomed to eventual capture.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. I agree wit this part. >This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. I don't agree with this part. Our nation has gone through periods of more corruption and less corruption. It's pretty simple to get back to a period of less corruption: keep voting out the incumbents. Will the people who replace them be corrupt? It's certainly possible, but we know the ones currently holding office are corrupt. Furthermore, when we have fresh politicians, because they are new to office, they won't have such intrenched interests. We will never get another TR, FDR or LBJ when someone corrupt is holding their seat of power.
  - alsetmusic 5y ago
    I’m curious why you list LBJ alongside FDR. I see the former as guiding the US further into a pointless cold war which JFK seemed to want to put to bed.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      LBJ's domestic programs were overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Vietnam would unfortunately come to dominate his legacy. Some of his big domestic successes were: Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty, and the Civil Rights Act. I would argue he was the last "common man" Democrat. He also grew up dirt poor. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affair... Historians are doubtful that had JFK lived, the US involvement in Vietnam would be much different. It's interesting that history gives him a pass since he also escalated the war as well. https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/ https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vi... LBJ recorded most of his phone conversations for historical record. They are pretty interesting. https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon
paulryanrogers 5y ago
Kind of ironic that Disney leveraged so much public domain material to build its empire. A bit of pulling the ladder up after themselves.

by y7 5y ago

londons_explore 5y ago

I think there's an element of national economy to it... When country A public domains some IP, then country B might use it to earn money. Whereas if Country A allows company A within the country to keep a license to that IP, total revenue might be lower, but at least it occurred within country A.

10000truths 5y ago
Licenses are just paper. Country A has very little recourse if Country B decides not to honor the intellectual property laws of Country A. The most that can be done is an embargo/sanction, which may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B, depending on the IP in question.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  USA IP laws are stuck to in most of the developed world. There are a lot of trade deals that have the enforcement of IP laws globally as a condition.
  - freejazz 5y ago
    If I am in the US and someone in a foreign country infringes my IP I almost definitely cannot sue them for copyright infringement in the US.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      You can usually sue them in their country though, which normally will enforce US copyright. You can also prevent them bringing any of their product into the USA through US courts.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    This only applies to IP owned by megacorps with armies of lobbyists.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  > Country A has very little recourse if Country B decides not to honor the intellectual property laws of Country A. The most that can be done is an embargo/sanction, which may or may not be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B, depending on the IP in question. Embargo/sanctions are... quite a big deal? They will absolutely never be a worthwhile tradeoff for country B.
  - 10000truths 5y ago
    Not always true. For country B = China, which has has plenty of trading power of its own, embargoes/sanctions can hurt the US, so that stick must be used sparingly. For country B = Cuba/Iran/North Korea/Venezuela, they are already under heavy embargoes/sanctions by the US, so why should they care about US intellectual property laws?
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Greed, plain and simple.

pibechorro 5y ago

Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. Any system that does not heavily accept and model itself against the potential for corruption is naive. If its not trustless, decentralized and emergent from the bottom up it doomed to eventual capture.

Clubber 5y ago
>Policy making determines who makes money. As such, it will ALWAYS attract those looking to profit by influencing the process, aka regulatory capture. aka corruption. I agree wit this part. >This is inescapable so long there are regulators and so long it involves humans. I don't agree with this part. Our nation has gone through periods of more corruption and less corruption. It's pretty simple to get back to a period of less corruption: keep voting out the incumbents. Will the people who replace them be corrupt? It's certainly possible, but we know the ones currently holding office are corrupt. Furthermore, when we have fresh politicians, because they are new to office, they won't have such intrenched interests. We will never get another TR, FDR or LBJ when someone corrupt is holding their seat of power.
- alsetmusic 5y ago
  I’m curious why you list LBJ alongside FDR. I see the former as guiding the US further into a pointless cold war which JFK seemed to want to put to bed.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    LBJ's domestic programs were overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Vietnam would unfortunately come to dominate his legacy. Some of his big domestic successes were: Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty, and the Civil Rights Act. I would argue he was the last "common man" Democrat. He also grew up dirt poor. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affair... Historians are doubtful that had JFK lived, the US involvement in Vietnam would be much different. It's interesting that history gives him a pass since he also escalated the war as well. https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/ https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vi... LBJ recorded most of his phone conversations for historical record. They are pretty interesting. https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon https://www.discoverlbj.org/exhibits/show/loh/telecon

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Kind of ironic that Disney leveraged so much public domain material to build its empire. A bit of pulling the ladder up after themselves.