3 ms·

The US is unique in its enormous bargaining power. US power underlies the whole framework of international institutions today. No international treaties poses a

The US is unique in its enormous bargaining power. US power underlies the whole framework of international institutions today. No international treaties poses a serious threat to the US. Just look at what consequences the US suffered for starting a war in Iraq.

shagie 4y ago
Much of the US's bargaining power on the world stage comes from the bit that companies based in the US are responsible for a sizable portion of the intellectual property created in the world (patents, software, books, movies and other media). The US (and California) profits substantially from maintaining control of and allowing its citizens and companies to likewise maintain control of the IP that they create. Lets go back to the original part of this thread. California can't get rid of copyright. Suggesting it as a way of eliminating targeting advertising is a substantial leap of argumentation without any supporting material. For copyright to be gotten rid of, this would take a concerted effort from congress to withdraw from those treaties (and you can be sure that every company in California that creates copyrighted or patented works (e.g. Silicon Valley and Hollywood) would pack up their bags from what would be the the 5th largest economy in the world if California was a state and move to the other CA a few hundred miles north. Those treaties include Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, TRIPS as part of the WTO, and WCT. Meanwhile, how does copyright prevent P2P publishing? How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising?
- breck 4y ago
  > How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising? Yes, P2P is prohibited now. I found this out when I was a broke college student targeted by the RIAA in 2004. If P2P publishing were legalized, I'd have a better Netflix out in a week, with no ads.
  - shagie 4y ago
    You can publish something under a CC0 license and not be constrained. Be the change that you want to see. If the US was to hypothetically back out of the copyright treaties, all the other countries would still be there to enforce it. If you want a better Netflix without the ads make that content yourself and publish it. If you attempt to take away the ability for Netflix (and others) to be able to charge for it - you're going to be seeing material that you make yourself because no one else will. Start this by going and making a movie and publishing it yourself - not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created.
    - breck 4y ago
      > Be the change that you want to see. I am. Everything I build is public domain. It's cost me a lot of money but I can look myself in the mirror and see an honest man. > not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created. Copyright is sleazy. Plain and simple. It's indefensible. It is Intellectual Slavery. I'm just saying the truth that people don't want to hear. Stephan Kinsella is the one to read/watch/listen to for all the extended and comprehensive rebuttals.
      - shagie 4y ago
        I would challenge you to first propose a structure that somehow compensates people who create artistic works now to be able to do so in the future without subjecting them to a patronage system. Figure out how to fund research that doesn't need to rely upon licensing of patents. The bold statements of "eliminate copyright and it will solve {problem}" without the corresponding steps that you would need to get there are intellectually dishonest and ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work. I would also note that I do value the software freedoms and without copyright there would be no way to enforce the redistribution of the source and the improvements that a company makes on it. "Here's the binary, but good luck trying to back port the bug fixes we did" is something that the licensing that copyleft provides. The approach of "burn down copyright and something wonderful will emerge from its ashes" is not a convincing argument.

shagie 4y ago

Much of the US's bargaining power on the world stage comes from the bit that companies based in the US are responsible for a sizable portion of the intellectual property created in the world (patents, software, books, movies and other media). The US (and California) profits substantially from maintaining control of and allowing its citizens and companies to likewise maintain control of the IP that they create. Lets go back to the original part of this thread. California can't get rid of copyright. Suggesting it as a way of eliminating targeting advertising is a substantial leap of argumentation without any supporting material. For copyright to be gotten rid of, this would take a concerted effort from congress to withdraw from those treaties (and you can be sure that every company in California that creates copyrighted or patented works (e.g. Silicon Valley and Hollywood) would pack up their bags from what would be the the 5th largest economy in the world if California was a state and move to the other CA a few hundred miles north. Those treaties include Berne, UCC Geneva, UCC Paris, TRIPS as part of the WTO, and WCT. Meanwhile, how does copyright prevent P2P publishing? How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising?

breck 4y ago
> How would enabling P2P publishing (which isn't prohibited now) get rid of targeted advertising? Yes, P2P is prohibited now. I found this out when I was a broke college student targeted by the RIAA in 2004. If P2P publishing were legalized, I'd have a better Netflix out in a week, with no ads.
- shagie 4y ago
  You can publish something under a CC0 license and not be constrained. Be the change that you want to see. If the US was to hypothetically back out of the copyright treaties, all the other countries would still be there to enforce it. If you want a better Netflix without the ads make that content yourself and publish it. If you attempt to take away the ability for Netflix (and others) to be able to charge for it - you're going to be seeing material that you make yourself because no one else will. Start this by going and making a movie and publishing it yourself - not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created.
  - breck 4y ago
    > Be the change that you want to see. I am. Everything I build is public domain. It's cost me a lot of money but I can look myself in the mirror and see an honest man. > not by proposing that everyone else lose the ability to make a living off of content that they have created. Copyright is sleazy. Plain and simple. It's indefensible. It is Intellectual Slavery. I'm just saying the truth that people don't want to hear. Stephan Kinsella is the one to read/watch/listen to for all the extended and comprehensive rebuttals.
    - shagie 4y ago
      I would challenge you to first propose a structure that somehow compensates people who create artistic works now to be able to do so in the future without subjecting them to a patronage system. Figure out how to fund research that doesn't need to rely upon licensing of patents. The bold statements of "eliminate copyright and it will solve {problem}" without the corresponding steps that you would need to get there are intellectually dishonest and ignore the current economic system and wellbeing of the authors and artists who produce work. I would also note that I do value the software freedoms and without copyright there would be no way to enforce the redistribution of the source and the improvements that a company makes on it. "Here's the binary, but good luck trying to back port the bug fixes we did" is something that the licensing that copyleft provides. The approach of "burn down copyright and something wonderful will emerge from its ashes" is not a convincing argument.