22 ms·

Excellent. I hope more and more people start to see how absurd and evil the concept of "intellectual property" is. It should be totally rejected and any form of

by plmu 4y ago

Excellent. I hope more and more people start to see how absurd and evil the concept of "intellectual property" is. It should be totally rejected and any form of keeping useful information for yourself should be shunned and tabooized. In todays world, many have been programmed to believe that the would could not exits without such immoral restrictions, which is horrible.

jesterson 4y ago
There should be a fine line in intellectual property rights. I see where you are coming from - quite often intellectual property is used a a moat to protect insane revenues and, as a repercussion, delay or slowdown our progress as humanity. But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. If you ask where the fine line should be I have no immediate answer, but abolishing intellectual property rights just like enforcing them at all costs doesn't seem to be the optimal course of action to me.
- js8 4y ago
  I think that's pretty much the case for shortening time frame of IP rights. Which means, they shouldn't be treated as property has been traditionally treated. Although as a socialist, I think perhaps we shouldn't have time unlimited property rights (above certain reasonable boundary, say $10M) in general.
  - jesterson 4y ago
    Interesting, but being very opposite of socialist myself I am wholeheartedly with you here on limiting timeframe of IP. It partially solves the problem. And this arguably should be extended to tangible assets as well - I like Singapore model where housing property is sold for specific timeframe. It simplifies a lot of redevelopment.
    - blangk 4y ago
      Something like the homestead principle?
      - jesterson 4y ago
        Not precisely so. We tend to think of ownership as in absolute owning of an asset for indefinite time. For a lot of things in Singapore you can ownership (i.e. own it) in that sense, but after sone time you have either to return it or stop using (rendering it useless). This applies to assets like homes, cars, etc. If it’s not feasible to enforce those policies, government just imposes hefty tax on assets, ensuring you extract (or contribute) sufficient added value from asset.
- thanatos519 4y ago
  > But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. This thinking is an artifact of an economic system so dependent on scarcity for its motivation that it is now generating most of the scarcity in the world. We now have the technology for creative implementations of "From each according to its ability, to each according to its needs". Just keep track of how much each thing is used, and reward creators from a corporate-tax-funded pool. Every for-profit entity contributes proportionally to its profit, and can use any idea for free.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Even just having substantial "prizes" for the most widely used stuff (whether publicly or privately funded) would go a long way. (Most of our public funding for content creation now happens as grants, basically rewarding compelling ideas and then simply trusting that the reward money will be spent on doing worthwhile things. This does not work very well, for obvious reasons.)
  - jesterson 4y ago
    What you say was partially implemented in USSR. It killed any productivity because author (inventor) is discouraged from doing more. Why bother?
  - account42 4y ago
    Well said. The reality is that even in our current work without copyrigh a lot of value is added by creators who never see any real reward for it. Yet instead looking at how we can better reward creators we continue with continue with this insane system that has been shown be easily abused to concentrate wealth while having a massive cost for society by restricting what we all do and making everyone pay for enforcing those restrictions.
zasdffaa 4y ago
I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. It was technically pretty difficult and needed a lot of background knowledge. Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I partly get where you stand but if I was in a society that you seem to endorse my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. It almost is the opposite of a meritocracy.
- cookiengineer 4y ago
  If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources. Note that if you don't defend it in court, our justice system thinks it is less valueable to protect. Which in itself is kind of ridiculous. Also, right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
    - sgift 4y ago
      > There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
      - 4y ago
noselasd 4y ago
Most people writing books, e.g. these, https://www.oreilly.com/ https://www.oreilly.com/ would not do so if they could not monetize it - which would be even harder if there was no legal protection of the work they did. I don't like your idea at all.
risyachka 4y ago
If you want to drastically reduce the number of new books, songs, content then sure. Otherwise, I am having a really hard time understanding how can you suggest that I don't own the book I spend a *decade* to write. It is just as mine as the car you drive is yours. To tighten regulations around intellectual property to make sure that it is not abused - sure. To ban? Obviously never.
grumbel 4y ago
I can't imagine getting rid of it completely would have good effects, as it would make any large scale production impossible. You might still get a few blog post, but getting books produced will be tricky and something big like a movie might be outright impossible. This is doubly true in the modern digital world were everything can be copied in a fraction of a second and where the piracy site, not the authors, will be what bubbles to the top of the search results. It could also result in far more draconian DRM, as that would be the only way left to protect your work. Now drastically lowering the time of copyright might be well worth it, something in the realm of 20 years should be enough. As copyright needs to get back to a point where things you consumed in your lifetime, make it into the public domain in your lifetime.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > It could also result in far more draconian DRM, as that would be the only way left to protect your work. There is no way to protect video, audio or text from being copied. DRM just prevents low effort consumer copying.
  - grumbel 4y ago
    There are plenty of ways. Limit playback only to official DRM-locked devices and have those devices film the user. The moment a camera makes it into the picture you block their account for life. That's not even new tech, 3D face detection is standard part of many smartphones and laptops. And companies like Facebook have no problem locking you out forever from their services, for much milder infractions. Or more practically, just look at cinemas. They already film the audience to prevent filming and with great success. While you still get illegal copies of a movie easily, it's only extremely low quality smartphone rubbish. The high quality piracy videos only shows up months later once the films hit streaming services or Bluray. And all of that is just current tech, lets assume VR will become a success in the future. Now you have a device on your head that tracks every little one of your moves, including things like heart rate and eye-tracking. Furthermore, what streams to you isn't an easily ripable 2D copy of the movie, but the 3D view of sitting in a cinema. Good luck trying to rip that. And of course tamper proof hardware is a thing as well, so any attempt at opening it up will automatically self destruct it and phone home that you tampered with it.
dandanua 4y ago
Right, fuck book writers and inventors. Also, the information about nuclear, chemical and bio weapons should be accessible to everyone. Preferably as DIY recipes, that you can follow at home.
- no_time 4y ago
  Bad example. If a regular citizen can get his hands on tools/materials to make things like that, you are screwed sooner or later.
  - dandanua 4y ago
    It seems I've failed to ridicule the top commenter enough.
  - mrbukkake 4y ago
    what is sarcasm???
fartsucker69 4y ago
creating nontrivial intellectual property usually takes a lot of work, work that has to be paid otherwise it could literally not be done, i.e. the great people who create those works could attempt maybe one such work and in most modern cases they would not get close to finishing it before they literally run out of money to pay for rent and food. the system around intellectual property has some issues but some form of protection / ownership needs to be there. if you had your wish and the concept of IP was treated as shunned and taboo you would quickly live in a world with vastly diminished amount and quality of art, science and technology.
freetanga 4y ago
If you spend time learning, spend time putting together your knowledge, and spend time sharing, it is very sensible you expect some economic return if you choose to. Alternatively you can Open Source. It’s the authors choice. But we live in an infant society, with many grown ups acting like spoilt childrens, saying “I want to get that fancy FAANG job, I want to be wealthy, and I expect to do it copy-pasting others people knowledge and infringing IP, but if someone else begs to differ I start whining”
d0mine 4y ago
Such comments remind me provocateur methods used by police to suppress any legitimate critique. It works like this: 1. there is some legitimate issue 2. people protest (peacefully) 3. a provocateur does something over the top (violence, absurd statements like "defund the police") 4. legitimate protesters are discredited because of 3.
slightwinder 4y ago
Interesting to call it evil, when your whole reasoning is driven by pure greed. I guess you don't see greed as something evil? Or do you think there is a human right to consume? That everyone has the right to experience and own everything for free, what others have created and worked hard for? Anyway, "intellectual property" has proven to be a driver of quality, as the earned money gives liberty and time for the creators. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Sure, there are warts in the system and we should get rid of them, but not by removing the whole good side.
lovelearning 4y ago
I think making books, and knowledge in general, available to everybody is an essential public service. At a time when disinformation is so widespread, actual data and understanding are essential weapons against it. In that sense, these piracy sites are acting like global public libraries open to everybody with an internet connection. At the same time, I feel the authors, researchers, editors, and other support staff that gift the world with knowledge should be rewarded for their effort. It'd be great if there's an honor system that enables readers around the world to pay them some amount to show gratitude. The current system is of two extremes -- either first pay the price set by the publisher to even browse a book (and that price is ridiculously high in underdeveloped countries), or get the full book without paying anything. There should be a spectrum of rental and gratitude amounts in between. The publishers themselves can together set up such an online library to make it all legal. Not only will they help humanity, but they'll also get some of the revenue they're currently missing out on. A balance seems to have been struck in the music business with most of it being legal and accessible nowadays. They should do it for books too.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
I call it Imaginary Property and refuse to call it anything else.
nmz 4y ago
Its funny that often the only people who think this are programmers. everyone else who hopes to make a living doesn't. ATM, not even the NYT Best Sellers make a livable wage and now with Dall-E, artists wont either. COVID basically killed a lot of musicians income. DJs and so on. Its probably also why media itself has achieved such a mediocre state, no authors, no novels, no adaptation. we are in a future which much of the current media is a sea of mediocrity. There's lots of content sure, but barely any that's worth a damn.

by plmu 4y ago

jesterson 4y ago

There should be a fine line in intellectual property rights. I see where you are coming from - quite often intellectual property is used a a moat to protect insane revenues and, as a repercussion, delay or slowdown our progress as humanity. But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. If you ask where the fine line should be I have no immediate answer, but abolishing intellectual property rights just like enforcing them at all costs doesn't seem to be the optimal course of action to me.

js8 4y ago
I think that's pretty much the case for shortening time frame of IP rights. Which means, they shouldn't be treated as property has been traditionally treated. Although as a socialist, I think perhaps we shouldn't have time unlimited property rights (above certain reasonable boundary, say $10M) in general.
- jesterson 4y ago
  Interesting, but being very opposite of socialist myself I am wholeheartedly with you here on limiting timeframe of IP. It partially solves the problem. And this arguably should be extended to tangible assets as well - I like Singapore model where housing property is sold for specific timeframe. It simplifies a lot of redevelopment.
  - blangk 4y ago
    Something like the homestead principle?
    - jesterson 4y ago
      Not precisely so. We tend to think of ownership as in absolute owning of an asset for indefinite time. For a lot of things in Singapore you can ownership (i.e. own it) in that sense, but after sone time you have either to return it or stop using (rendering it useless). This applies to assets like homes, cars, etc. If it’s not feasible to enforce those policies, government just imposes hefty tax on assets, ensuring you extract (or contribute) sufficient added value from asset.
thanatos519 4y ago
> But it is also use to protect unique creator revenue and encourage to create more. This thinking is an artifact of an economic system so dependent on scarcity for its motivation that it is now generating most of the scarcity in the world. We now have the technology for creative implementations of "From each according to its ability, to each according to its needs". Just keep track of how much each thing is used, and reward creators from a corporate-tax-funded pool. Every for-profit entity contributes proportionally to its profit, and can use any idea for free.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Even just having substantial "prizes" for the most widely used stuff (whether publicly or privately funded) would go a long way. (Most of our public funding for content creation now happens as grants, basically rewarding compelling ideas and then simply trusting that the reward money will be spent on doing worthwhile things. This does not work very well, for obvious reasons.)
- jesterson 4y ago
  What you say was partially implemented in USSR. It killed any productivity because author (inventor) is discouraged from doing more. Why bother?
- account42 4y ago
  Well said. The reality is that even in our current work without copyrigh a lot of value is added by creators who never see any real reward for it. Yet instead looking at how we can better reward creators we continue with continue with this insane system that has been shown be easily abused to concentrate wealth while having a massive cost for society by restricting what we all do and making everyone pay for enforcing those restrictions.

zasdffaa 4y ago

I've just spent 2 years writing something which ain't got anything else like it. It was technically pretty difficult and needed a lot of background knowledge. Should I be disallowed to commercialise it? I partly get where you stand but if I was in a society that you seem to endorse my first question would be, other than for the love of doing it, why sink so much effort into a thing only to get nothing back. It almost is the opposite of a meritocracy.

cookiengineer 4y ago
If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources. Note that if you don't defend it in court, our justice system thinks it is less valueable to protect. Which in itself is kind of ridiculous. Also, right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
  - sgift 4y ago
    > There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
    - 4y ago

noselasd 4y ago

Most people writing books, e.g. these, https://www.oreilly.com/ https://www.oreilly.com/ would not do so if they could not monetize it - which would be even harder if there was no legal protection of the work they did. I don't like your idea at all.

risyachka 4y ago

If you want to drastically reduce the number of new books, songs, content then sure. Otherwise, I am having a really hard time understanding how can you suggest that I don't own the book I spend a *decade* to write. It is just as mine as the car you drive is yours. To tighten regulations around intellectual property to make sure that it is not abused - sure. To ban? Obviously never.

grumbel 4y ago

I can't imagine getting rid of it completely would have good effects, as it would make any large scale production impossible. You might still get a few blog post, but getting books produced will be tricky and something big like a movie might be outright impossible. This is doubly true in the modern digital world were everything can be copied in a fraction of a second and where the piracy site, not the authors, will be what bubbles to the top of the search results. It could also result in far more draconian DRM, as that would be the only way left to protect your work. Now drastically lowering the time of copyright might be well worth it, something in the realm of 20 years should be enough. As copyright needs to get back to a point where things you consumed in your lifetime, make it into the public domain in your lifetime.

rightbyte 4y ago
> It could also result in far more draconian DRM, as that would be the only way left to protect your work. There is no way to protect video, audio or text from being copied. DRM just prevents low effort consumer copying.
- grumbel 4y ago
  There are plenty of ways. Limit playback only to official DRM-locked devices and have those devices film the user. The moment a camera makes it into the picture you block their account for life. That's not even new tech, 3D face detection is standard part of many smartphones and laptops. And companies like Facebook have no problem locking you out forever from their services, for much milder infractions. Or more practically, just look at cinemas. They already film the audience to prevent filming and with great success. While you still get illegal copies of a movie easily, it's only extremely low quality smartphone rubbish. The high quality piracy videos only shows up months later once the films hit streaming services or Bluray. And all of that is just current tech, lets assume VR will become a success in the future. Now you have a device on your head that tracks every little one of your moves, including things like heart rate and eye-tracking. Furthermore, what streams to you isn't an easily ripable 2D copy of the movie, but the 3D view of sitting in a cinema. Good luck trying to rip that. And of course tamper proof hardware is a thing as well, so any attempt at opening it up will automatically self destruct it and phone home that you tampered with it.

dandanua 4y ago

Right, fuck book writers and inventors. Also, the information about nuclear, chemical and bio weapons should be accessible to everyone. Preferably as DIY recipes, that you can follow at home.

no_time 4y ago
Bad example. If a regular citizen can get his hands on tools/materials to make things like that, you are screwed sooner or later.
- dandanua 4y ago
  It seems I've failed to ridicule the top commenter enough.
- mrbukkake 4y ago
  what is sarcasm???

fartsucker69 4y ago

creating nontrivial intellectual property usually takes a lot of work, work that has to be paid otherwise it could literally not be done, i.e. the great people who create those works could attempt maybe one such work and in most modern cases they would not get close to finishing it before they literally run out of money to pay for rent and food. the system around intellectual property has some issues but some form of protection / ownership needs to be there. if you had your wish and the concept of IP was treated as shunned and taboo you would quickly live in a world with vastly diminished amount and quality of art, science and technology.

freetanga 4y ago

If you spend time learning, spend time putting together your knowledge, and spend time sharing, it is very sensible you expect some economic return if you choose to. Alternatively you can Open Source. It’s the authors choice. But we live in an infant society, with many grown ups acting like spoilt childrens, saying “I want to get that fancy FAANG job, I want to be wealthy, and I expect to do it copy-pasting others people knowledge and infringing IP, but if someone else begs to differ I start whining”

d0mine 4y ago

Such comments remind me provocateur methods used by police to suppress any legitimate critique. It works like this: 1. there is some legitimate issue 2. people protest (peacefully) 3. a provocateur does something over the top (violence, absurd statements like "defund the police") 4. legitimate protesters are discredited because of 3.

slightwinder 4y ago

Interesting to call it evil, when your whole reasoning is driven by pure greed. I guess you don't see greed as something evil? Or do you think there is a human right to consume? That everyone has the right to experience and own everything for free, what others have created and worked hard for? Anyway, "intellectual property" has proven to be a driver of quality, as the earned money gives liberty and time for the creators. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Sure, there are warts in the system and we should get rid of them, but not by removing the whole good side.

lovelearning 4y ago

I think making books, and knowledge in general, available to everybody is an essential public service. At a time when disinformation is so widespread, actual data and understanding are essential weapons against it. In that sense, these piracy sites are acting like global public libraries open to everybody with an internet connection. At the same time, I feel the authors, researchers, editors, and other support staff that gift the world with knowledge should be rewarded for their effort. It'd be great if there's an honor system that enables readers around the world to pay them some amount to show gratitude. The current system is of two extremes -- either first pay the price set by the publisher to even browse a book (and that price is ridiculously high in underdeveloped countries), or get the full book without paying anything. There should be a spectrum of rental and gratitude amounts in between. The publishers themselves can together set up such an online library to make it all legal. Not only will they help humanity, but they'll also get some of the revenue they're currently missing out on. A balance seems to have been struck in the music business with most of it being legal and accessible nowadays. They should do it for books too.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

I call it Imaginary Property and refuse to call it anything else.

nmz 4y ago

Its funny that often the only people who think this are programmers. everyone else who hopes to make a living doesn't. ATM, not even the NYT Best Sellers make a livable wage and now with Dall-E, artists wont either. COVID basically killed a lot of musicians income. DJs and so on. Its probably also why media itself has achieved such a mediocre state, no authors, no novels, no adaptation. we are in a future which much of the current media is a sea of mediocrity. There's lots of content sure, but barely any that's worth a damn.