4 ms·

Patents and copyrigt laws are immoral.

harimau777 1y ago
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Certainly IP is regularly abused to try to suppress competition/innovation, own our shared culture, create artificial scarcity, etc. However, there's also a need to protect artists and other creatives from having their work scooped up and profited off of by mega corps.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  You're taking a nuanced view of fundamental thing and completely missing the point. Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. Arguing about good and bad industrialists is missing the point.
  - amarait 1y ago
    I agree. Its very difficult to find people who agree with this
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    What about compound interest? After all, inheritance is merely letting wealth continue to compound across generations. But at first glance, the same arguments against inheritance would apply against letting a single person earn interest.
    - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
      Inheritance is about coming into the world unequal.
      - TeMPOraL 1y ago
        If that's the problem, we also need to ban society - cause one can be more prosperous than other, and it disadvantages those born into the latter.
        thedevilslawyer 1y ago
        That's like your problem man. I'm not against society.
        TeMPOraL 1y ago
        Only against nuance and consistency of beliefs.
      - pyuser583 1y ago
        So is citizenship. Should we do away with that as well?
  - hellojesus 1y ago
    > Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. How is inheritance bad? Imo, estate taxes are more immoral. Why should the state be allowed a cut of my private assets? Gift taxes are also immoral. Why should I have to pay taxes for giving away assets?
    - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
      Why should we accept assets can be owned? Your life is a meaningless speck of time in eternity.
      - TeMPOraL 1y ago
        I suppose because we're wired this way. Can't think of any group or society that didn't have some notion of private property that wasn't just a huge (and brief) humanitarian tragedy.
        hammock 1y ago
        Yes, private property enables human civilization, all the good and the bad. Before the agricultural revolution led to protected and exploited stores of grain, we were far smaller tribes of hunters and gatherers with far less technology
        hellojesus 1y ago
        Those smaller tribes were continuously at war over resources... It's exactly the behavior we observe in nature whenever resource scarcity presents. A world without private property leads to a world of pure lawlessness. Sure... We could do that, but it would quickly devolve into forever warfare where only might wins, and even that for only fleetingly small timeslices. History's progression has proven that exploited workers still prefer to exist in that system vs one of continual peril.
      - hellojesus 1y ago
        My life, yes, but my genetic lifeline exists up to and including eternity if luck and good decision making are on the side of my generations of offspring. Let's consider the most basic form of ownership: that over one's body. By your logic, my life is a spec on the eternal timeline, so why make it a crime to harm or murder my physically?
Quarrelsome 1y ago
however they do result in flows of capitals feeding into otherwise unfundable enterprise like R&D; science and engineering, or culture; writing, music, art. Where's the ROI if you invest millions into R&D and your competitor invests $0 and can then just reproduce your works with their logo ontop of yours? To sack off IP and copyright would significantly narrow innovation and result in many artists, scientists and engineers having their income severely suppressed if not eradicated. Instead that money would temporarily go to a bunch of hacks that do nothing but copy and chase the bottom, before vanishing into thin air as the works become entirely unprofitable. I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated. With regulated term limits on patents and copyright we create a world where an artist can create licensed product and protect themselves during the course of their career, and people are them able to riff on their works after some decades or after they pass on.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated I think if behavior needs to be regulated by government in order to be moral, then it's immoral behavior by default The regulation doesn't make it moral, the regulation only limits the damage by limiting how immoral you're allowed to be
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    The regulation is what makes it worth while for people to invent/write. Patents/copyrights have been a net benefit for society with a smaller negative downside.
    - dmbche 1y ago
      Can you point to something that quantifies the positives vs the negatives? I have a hard time arguing that it's a net positive.
      - _DeadFred_ 1y ago

I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Certainly IP is regularly abused to try to suppress competition/innovation, own our shared culture, create artificial scarcity, etc. However, there's also a need to protect artists and other creatives from having their work scooped up and profited off of by mega corps.

thedevilslawyer 1y ago
You're taking a nuanced view of fundamental thing and completely missing the point. Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. Arguing about good and bad industrialists is missing the point.
- amarait 1y ago
  I agree. Its very difficult to find people who agree with this
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  What about compound interest? After all, inheritance is merely letting wealth continue to compound across generations. But at first glance, the same arguments against inheritance would apply against letting a single person earn interest.
  - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
    Inheritance is about coming into the world unequal.
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      If that's the problem, we also need to ban society - cause one can be more prosperous than other, and it disadvantages those born into the latter.
      - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
        That's like your problem man. I'm not against society.
        TeMPOraL 1y ago
        Only against nuance and consistency of beliefs.
    - pyuser583 1y ago
      So is citizenship. Should we do away with that as well?
- hellojesus 1y ago
  > Copyright is bad like inheritance is bad. How is inheritance bad? Imo, estate taxes are more immoral. Why should the state be allowed a cut of my private assets? Gift taxes are also immoral. Why should I have to pay taxes for giving away assets?
  - thedevilslawyer 1y ago
    Why should we accept assets can be owned? Your life is a meaningless speck of time in eternity.
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      I suppose because we're wired this way. Can't think of any group or society that didn't have some notion of private property that wasn't just a huge (and brief) humanitarian tragedy.
      - hammock 1y ago
        Yes, private property enables human civilization, all the good and the bad. Before the agricultural revolution led to protected and exploited stores of grain, we were far smaller tribes of hunters and gatherers with far less technology
        hellojesus 1y ago
        Those smaller tribes were continuously at war over resources... It's exactly the behavior we observe in nature whenever resource scarcity presents. A world without private property leads to a world of pure lawlessness. Sure... We could do that, but it would quickly devolve into forever warfare where only might wins, and even that for only fleetingly small timeslices. History's progression has proven that exploited workers still prefer to exist in that system vs one of continual peril.
    - hellojesus 1y ago
      My life, yes, but my genetic lifeline exists up to and including eternity if luck and good decision making are on the side of my generations of offspring. Let's consider the most basic form of ownership: that over one's body. By your logic, my life is a spec on the eternal timeline, so why make it a crime to harm or murder my physically?

Quarrelsome 1y ago

however they do result in flows of capitals feeding into otherwise unfundable enterprise like R&D; science and engineering, or culture; writing, music, art. Where's the ROI if you invest millions into R&D and your competitor invests $0 and can then just reproduce your works with their logo ontop of yours? To sack off IP and copyright would significantly narrow innovation and result in many artists, scientists and engineers having their income severely suppressed if not eradicated. Instead that money would temporarily go to a bunch of hacks that do nothing but copy and chase the bottom, before vanishing into thin air as the works become entirely unprofitable. I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated. With regulated term limits on patents and copyright we create a world where an artist can create licensed product and protect themselves during the course of their career, and people are them able to riff on their works after some decades or after they pass on.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> I don't think its as simple as calling them immoral. Rather the immorality comes on them being poorly regulated I think if behavior needs to be regulated by government in order to be moral, then it's immoral behavior by default The regulation doesn't make it moral, the regulation only limits the damage by limiting how immoral you're allowed to be
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  The regulation is what makes it worth while for people to invent/write. Patents/copyrights have been a net benefit for society with a smaller negative downside.
  - dmbche 1y ago
    Can you point to something that quantifies the positives vs the negatives? I have a hard time arguing that it's a net positive.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago