5 ms·
There's nothing social about intellectual property law. It's been shaped by and to the benefit of corporations who would have us paying royalties to the descend
by Jochim 3y ago
There's nothing social about intellectual property law. It's been shaped by and to the benefit of corporations who would have us paying royalties to the descendants of the man who "invented" the wheel if they had their way.
It goes entirely against how humans think, strangling creativity and innovation. An artist is harmed far more when they're forced to spend years in court, debating whether their chord progression is too similar to a song written by someone who's been dead for 50 years.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoCouldn’t disagree more; IP is the only way we could have found to properly compensate creators for the value of their work. To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.
- justinclift 3y agoHmmm, how much real world exposure to art do you actually have? Have you ever actually published anything for others to purchase?
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoLots and yes.
- justinclift 3y agoExamples?
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYou first.
- justinclift 3y agoI've not claimed I had, whereas you have made that claim. So, evidence please. :)
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoNo. You haven't earned that.
- justinclift 3y agoSure, because that is why you can't provide evidence for your claims. :D
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYou want evidence for a rational argument? That's absurd. What I'm writing are conclusions, not claims.
- justinclift 3y agoConclusions based upon no evidence? Yeah, that's matching your comments so far, unfortunately not displaying the best grasp of logic. Hopefully you'll be able to understand the world a bit more and contribute meaningfully to it when you're older. Best of luck. :)
- MrVandemar 3y agoMost authors of published work fall over themselves to provide links or sources to their material. I suspect you are either not proud of your published work, or providing a link or examples would diminish rather than strengthen your position in this debate. It's easy to argue about morals and social contracts if you've published a literary work; less so if, for example, it winds up being a fan DnD extension module on DriveThruRPG. Someone is querying your credentials to learn about you, where you're coming from, what perspective you have, what skin you have, so to speak, in the game. Dodging behind some notion of having to "earn" your credentials when you have taken a very strong and contrarian position is disingenuous.
- ubercow13 3y agohttps://youtu.be/PJSTFzhs1O4 https://youtu.be/PJSTFzhs1O4
- etaweb 3y agoIntellectual property is not all about arts and extends beyond it. > To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself. Art is older than intellectual property. "To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoThrowing out intellectual property absolutely would stop the vast majority of the art made today from being made. We've had an explosion of art once we entered into an understanding that the creators of a work have control over how that work is used. Getting rid of that would kill film, television, and music. Would people still make these things? Yes. But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today.
- justinclift 3y ago> But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today. Finally you've raised what could be an interesting point. :) Is there usefulness in the quantity of film / television / music being created today? Would we be better off as a society if there was... less? Maybe turning off the fountain of crap would be an improvement? :)
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoNo, that's not an interesting point because the obvious answer is yes, more art is generally better than less art. Either way, it's not up to you to decide utility arbitrarily. Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place? The problem is that people want the art too much, and are willing to break the social contract in order to obtain it.
- justinclift 3y ago> the obvious answer is yes That's a bold claim. My opinion is different though. > Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place? Why are you accusing me of doing so? Are you basing it upon my not having the same viewpoint as you?
- monkeywork 3y ago>IP is the only way we could have found to properly compensate creators for the value of their work. To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself. Umm you do realize that some of the greatest works of art were created LONG before "IP" was a thing right? The patronage system did pretty well....
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoIf those are all the greatest works, why does anyone bother pirating movies and TV? Oh right, because they're infinitely more entertaining and cost millions to make.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoMore money = better art, apparently
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoNo. That's a non sequitur from what you replied to.
- justinclift 3y agoI thought you were an artist? But you don't seem to value art...?
- monkeywork 3y agoI said "some" not "all" of the greatest works. Since you seem to be a stickler for rules and agreements I'd urge you to re-read the guidelines for posting comments on this site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) as looking through this thread you are definitely flirting with the edges of them. I'm not sure why piracy is the internet hill you've decided to die on regarding arguments but I'm going to choose to disengage, give zero cares to your views on my morality, and use my own best judgement on when it's moral to pirate or not.
- Capricorn2481 3y agoAre you aware the earth is older than the last few centuries? How can you even make a claim like this with a straight face? Copyright is rather new, art is ancient. Corporate meddling doesn't help the small indie artists, it boots them out of theaters to fill seats for avengers 7
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoYour prior comments make it abundantly clear you've never heard of social contract theory before, or indeed the study of ethics. Maybe start reading a few books about it, or take a class? You're trying to argue that ethics literally does not exist, which is quite a tall order.