3 ms·

I am in general against patents, copywrite and trademark. if an idea is protected by such laws - you are limiting thought. I do not support such artificial th

I am in general against patents, copywrite and trademark. if an idea is protected by such laws - you are limiting thought. I do not support such artificial thought limits. In addition - arguments for it allowing innovation or promoting innovation... no: innovation comes from innovation's own sake - patens and copywrite only incentivize spending resources from other's thinking the wrong thoughts... patent trolling... or milking patents for what they are worth... Humanity would be a lot better off with a copyleft view of intellectual property. An idea in another person's head does not diminish your idea in your head... people need to stop thinking that thought itself is a zero-sum game.

MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago
> I am in general against patents, copywrite and trademark. if an idea is protected by such laws - you are limiting thought. I upvoted you, but I also have a counterpoint. If you do not protect the value of thought, then the differentiator among competing businesses boils down to cheap assets, relationships, and labor. Because everyone is sharing the same designs and processes the company who can out-cheap the competition wins. Innovation is not valued because it's cheaper to emulate what works.
an1sotropy 4y ago
just fyi, "copyleft" licenses like FSF's GPL and LGPL have legal weight only because of copyright law. The terms of those licences are terms that you, the copyright holder, can legally impose upon the licensee of your of you work.
- fsflover 4y ago
  These licenses intentionally use the copyright against itself. Without the copyright, they just would not be needed.
  - an1sotropy 4y ago
    I see and acknowledge your username, but I don't think your last statement is correct. The intent of reciprocal licenses is to enforce "share and share alike", to resist situations where companies suck up freely available code, repackage it, and then sell it back to you as binaries. If you want to make sure that everyone plays by "share and share alike", you need some legal teeth. A free-for-all with no copyright will not achieve that.
hgs3 4y ago
Agreed. DRM, DMCA, patent trolls, it’s all nonsense that hurts creators and suppresses innovation. We’re on the cusp of an AI revolution and all some people are thinking about is profit and IP.

MetaWhirledPeas 4y ago

> I am in general against patents, copywrite and trademark. if an idea is protected by such laws - you are limiting thought. I upvoted you, but I also have a counterpoint. If you do not protect the value of thought, then the differentiator among competing businesses boils down to cheap assets, relationships, and labor. Because everyone is sharing the same designs and processes the company who can out-cheap the competition wins. Innovation is not valued because it's cheaper to emulate what works.

an1sotropy 4y ago

just fyi, "copyleft" licenses like FSF's GPL and LGPL have legal weight only because of copyright law. The terms of those licences are terms that you, the copyright holder, can legally impose upon the licensee of your of you work.

fsflover 4y ago
These licenses intentionally use the copyright against itself. Without the copyright, they just would not be needed.
- an1sotropy 4y ago
  I see and acknowledge your username, but I don't think your last statement is correct. The intent of reciprocal licenses is to enforce "share and share alike", to resist situations where companies suck up freely available code, repackage it, and then sell it back to you as binaries. If you want to make sure that everyone plays by "share and share alike", you need some legal teeth. A free-for-all with no copyright will not achieve that.

hgs3 4y ago

Agreed. DRM, DMCA, patent trolls, it’s all nonsense that hurts creators and suppresses innovation. We’re on the cusp of an AI revolution and all some people are thinking about is profit and IP.