3 ms·

Copyrights and patents are holding back humanity.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
Somebody posted this link in a comment on a thread the other day: https://news.artnet.com/market/koch-brother-loses-it-on-air-after-blowing-millions-on-bogus-wine-41162 https://news.artnet.com/market/koch-brother-loses-it-on-air-... And it occurred to me that this is precisely the thing that's holding back humanity: "Koch estimates that he has spent $25 million on legal fees—far more than the $5 million he originally spent on the fake wine itself." We have a legal system that is completely inaccessible to the average man. That it can generate $25M in civil legal fees is beyond absurd. Patents and copyrights derive much of their force from the fact that they are enforced by a legal process where to play is to lose. There's no winning. It's no longer about justice, and it has largely become a form of financial bullying where entrenched interests beat up on smaller ones. Fix the legal system -- make it accessible -- and you've fixed patents and copyrights. To address this thread's point: I believe that AI, and perhaps _only_ AI, might be able to help with this.
- emporas 3y ago
  Two friends of mine, created a pretty good song some time back in 2013, and they tried to copyright it. One lawyer and mutual friend of mine and the band, asked for 200 euros to copyright just that one song. Later they realized, they could copyright the song for just 30 euros. On some other totally unrelated news, my parents knew a person who sold en mass music on cassettes illegally copied from other cassettes back in the 80s. He bought a BMW and build a house just from that. I was friends with his grandson when we were teenagers, and his grandson didn't care to play basketball or football or anything like that. He was obsessed with listening to music and memorize all the lyrics and stuff.
  - layer8 3y ago
    You don’t have to “copyright” a creative work in Europe for it to enjoy copyright protection. It automatically does so by virtue of being a creative work.
    - emporas 3y ago
      Oh i don't know anything about copyrights and the exact purpose they had to pay a lawyer. But i do know, that there were so many people scanning books, copying cassettes, cds, dvds etc, who profited by copying information minimum 1000%. We are well into half a century of copying everything, just using a manual and tedious process. Nowadays with statistical engines and the internet, the copying process is planetary and infinite. So what's the big difference? Let alone the fact that statistical engines do not copy information!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
petesergeant 3y ago
Overly long ones, anyway. Would you argue against a one-year copyright and non-broken patent process? I think most people would not.

Somebody posted this link in a comment on a thread the other day: https://news.artnet.com/market/koch-brother-loses-it-on-air-after-blowing-millions-on-bogus-wine-41162 https://news.artnet.com/market/koch-brother-loses-it-on-air-... And it occurred to me that this is precisely the thing that's holding back humanity: "Koch estimates that he has spent $25 million on legal fees—far more than the $5 million he originally spent on the fake wine itself." We have a legal system that is completely inaccessible to the average man. That it can generate $25M in civil legal fees is beyond absurd. Patents and copyrights derive much of their force from the fact that they are enforced by a legal process where to play is to lose. There's no winning. It's no longer about justice, and it has largely become a form of financial bullying where entrenched interests beat up on smaller ones. Fix the legal system -- make it accessible -- and you've fixed patents and copyrights. To address this thread's point: I believe that AI, and perhaps _only_ AI, might be able to help with this.

emporas 3y ago
Two friends of mine, created a pretty good song some time back in 2013, and they tried to copyright it. One lawyer and mutual friend of mine and the band, asked for 200 euros to copyright just that one song. Later they realized, they could copyright the song for just 30 euros. On some other totally unrelated news, my parents knew a person who sold en mass music on cassettes illegally copied from other cassettes back in the 80s. He bought a BMW and build a house just from that. I was friends with his grandson when we were teenagers, and his grandson didn't care to play basketball or football or anything like that. He was obsessed with listening to music and memorize all the lyrics and stuff.
- layer8 3y ago
  You don’t have to “copyright” a creative work in Europe for it to enjoy copyright protection. It automatically does so by virtue of being a creative work.
  - emporas 3y ago
    Oh i don't know anything about copyrights and the exact purpose they had to pay a lawyer. But i do know, that there were so many people scanning books, copying cassettes, cds, dvds etc, who profited by copying information minimum 1000%. We are well into half a century of copying everything, just using a manual and tedious process. Nowadays with statistical engines and the internet, the copying process is planetary and infinite. So what's the big difference? Let alone the fact that statistical engines do not copy information!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

petesergeant 3y ago

Overly long ones, anyway. Would you argue against a one-year copyright and non-broken patent process? I think most people would not.