3 ms·

I disagree entirely in that I believe government shouldn’t determine this but rather the market. The rights to an intellectual property should be transferable/s

I disagree entirely in that I believe government shouldn’t determine this but rather the market. The rights to an intellectual property should be transferable/sold in perpetuity and at some point the work will become less and less valuable as newer works outcompete for attention. This will differ depending on how great the work was as judged by the market but it’s still the commanding force. Any particular time for transfer from market control to public domain is arbitrary. If it’s worth anything it should be traceable not stolen. Everything will eventually have too little demand to be defensible and control will be let go and at that point it becomes public domain because it became public domain.

panja 2y ago
If you want the market to determine then why do you need IP at all? That's just government intervention...
- nemo44x 2y ago
  The government exists to protect the property of its citizens. You can’t have a reliable market without the threat of violence (prison, fines, etc) and judiciary from an authority and government is suitable for that purpose. It’s their main purpose in fact.
  - account42 2y ago
    The government exists to protect all basic human rights of its citizens, including their right to free speech and self expression. Copyright is a severe violation of those rights that is only allowed for a very specific purpose of encouraging more creation.
globular-toast 2y ago
So no copyright then? How would "the market" prevent publishers freeloading the works of authors? Suggest you look up why copyright was invented (and all the other thousands of ways simplistic markets don't work the way we'd like them to).
- nemo44x 2y ago
  I’m saying copyright in perpetuity enforced by the government with the threat of fines or prison for stealing a copyright holders property. From there the market can take over as it’s now free to operate without fears of piracy etc.

panja 2y ago

If you want the market to determine then why do you need IP at all? That's just government intervention...

nemo44x 2y ago
The government exists to protect the property of its citizens. You can’t have a reliable market without the threat of violence (prison, fines, etc) and judiciary from an authority and government is suitable for that purpose. It’s their main purpose in fact.
- account42 2y ago
  The government exists to protect all basic human rights of its citizens, including their right to free speech and self expression. Copyright is a severe violation of those rights that is only allowed for a very specific purpose of encouraging more creation.

globular-toast 2y ago

So no copyright then? How would "the market" prevent publishers freeloading the works of authors? Suggest you look up why copyright was invented (and all the other thousands of ways simplistic markets don't work the way we'd like them to).

nemo44x 2y ago
I’m saying copyright in perpetuity enforced by the government with the threat of fines or prison for stealing a copyright holders property. From there the market can take over as it’s now free to operate without fears of piracy etc.