3 ms·

It's not a binary too string / too weak. It's that _copyright_: - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP

It's not a binary too string / too weak. It's that _copyright_: - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP should be collectively owned by the people who created it and selling it should be illegal, - is too long, yes - DMCA can be used to harass without actually owning the IP and there are no penalties - the fair use exception can be used to allow clear cases of plagiarism where you mechanically transform an original work with barely any human input in such a way that it's hard or impossible to prove it was based on the original. As for _patents_, they should simply require proof of work - basically they should only be for recovering research costs (with profit), not holding everyone hostage. They should also be subject to experts in the field verifying they are not trivial and how much work they would take to replicate. And obviously China is a global parasite. We should apply to them the same standards they apply to us - none. --- More generally incentives matter. If trying something has (near) 0 cost but high reward, abusive actors will keep trying despite most of their attempts failing. Anybody who understands that incentives shape the world will immediately identify this pattern (any gamedevs here?). There must be punishments for provably bogus attempts to use IP - both copyright and patents.

pixl97 1y ago
>And obviously China is a global parasite. Britain said the same things about the US in the early days. We told them to f* off about copyright/patent stuff quite often.
- WillAdams 1y ago
  Britain was also putting into place laws/regulations/policies requiring that the U.S. purchase from British manufacturers rather than developing native production --- there's a reason why the first printing press in North America was in Mexico.
  - izacus 1y ago
    Which is pretty much what patent law ends up being right? The patent holder telling the licensee the conditions.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Copyright/patents/laws are just tools. They can be used for both good and evil. The early US had pro-social goals such as democracy or freedom. And yes, they used slaves because there are no good guys in history or politics, there's various shades of bad. Current China has anti-social goals such as total control of the population through technological means and expansion by conquest - see them harassing the legitimate government of all of Chine in Taiwan constantly with the military or trying to sink Philipino fishing boats with their warships (two crashed into each other recently). It is also currently committing genocide through both murder and sterilization. So yeah, I am totally for considering them a parasite and treating them as such.
Pet_Ant 1y ago
> - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP should be collectively owned by the people who created it and selling it should be illegal, That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. Without access to people with money now a lot of it wouldn't get made. And if they are fronting the money before it exists, then they are taking risk so they need a risk premium. The other results is art made by those who don't need it, purely made by amateurs, grant funded art, or socially funded art. All are workable, but with their own tradeoffs.
- coldtea 1y ago
  >That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. It should. >Without access to people with money now a lot of it wouldn't get made. So be it. >The other results is art made by those who don't need it, purely made by amateurs, grant funded art, or socially funded art. Sounds amazing. We don't need to go with the default vanilla options that are passed as inevitable...
  - Someone 1y ago
    >> That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. > It should. Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income. Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee. Why shouldn’t a band be permitted to do something similar, getting money now in exchange for future income and, at the same time, transferring the risk of their future product being a flop to a third party?
    - coldtea 1y ago
      >Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income I'm against those as well. Buy stuff after you can afford it. >Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee. I'm against insurance companies too. Have a public insurance fund instead.
martin-t 1y ago
Oh, yeah, 5 upvotes and 2 comments, then suddenly 7 downvotes without any replies. Totally organic.
izacus 1y ago
I'm really fascinated about heavy downvotes for your post because it makes a lot of sense. I wonder who the people who show up to defend IP law are in these conversations. Why do it? What's the gain?
- martin-t 1y ago
  Who knows? Votes should be public, otherwise this is an easy way to make opinions less visible without having to provide any justification. Sometimes very similar comments in favor of protecting producers get upvotes on one post and downvotes on another. I also started seeing a pattern - even if a particular comment ends up downvoted in the end, there's usually a few upvotes first, sometimes with comments, then downvotes quickly to get it negative and there's never any comments justifying it and few if any comments after it gets negative. This indicates downvoting works well to silence the discussion.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    When you think about it, it really doesn't make much difference if it's a downvote-a-bot or not. If it acts like a bot, walks like a bot, and quacks like a bot, it might as well be a bot. Nobody's comments are read only by humans any more.
n8m8 1y ago
"protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work)" > laughs in Capitalism

pixl97 1y ago

>And obviously China is a global parasite. Britain said the same things about the US in the early days. We told them to f* off about copyright/patent stuff quite often.

WillAdams 1y ago
Britain was also putting into place laws/regulations/policies requiring that the U.S. purchase from British manufacturers rather than developing native production --- there's a reason why the first printing press in North America was in Mexico.
- izacus 1y ago
  Which is pretty much what patent law ends up being right? The patent holder telling the licensee the conditions.
martin-t 1y ago
Copyright/patents/laws are just tools. They can be used for both good and evil. The early US had pro-social goals such as democracy or freedom. And yes, they used slaves because there are no good guys in history or politics, there's various shades of bad. Current China has anti-social goals such as total control of the population through technological means and expansion by conquest - see them harassing the legitimate government of all of Chine in Taiwan constantly with the military or trying to sink Philipino fishing boats with their warships (two crashed into each other recently). It is also currently committing genocide through both murder and sterilization. So yeah, I am totally for considering them a parasite and treating them as such.

Pet_Ant 1y ago

> - protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work) - IP should be collectively owned by the people who created it and selling it should be illegal, That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. Without access to people with money now a lot of it wouldn't get made. And if they are fronting the money before it exists, then they are taking risk so they need a risk premium. The other results is art made by those who don't need it, purely made by amateurs, grant funded art, or socially funded art. All are workable, but with their own tradeoffs.

coldtea 1y ago
>That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. It should. >Without access to people with money now a lot of it wouldn't get made. So be it. >The other results is art made by those who don't need it, purely made by amateurs, grant funded art, or socially funded art. Sounds amazing. We don't need to go with the default vanilla options that are passed as inevitable...
- Someone 1y ago
  >> That's like say a band getting an advance to record their album should be illegal. > It should. Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income. Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee. Why shouldn’t a band be permitted to do something similar, getting money now in exchange for future income and, at the same time, transferring the risk of their future product being a flop to a third party?
  - coldtea 1y ago
    >Mortgages and car loans can be seen as advances on future income I'm against those as well. Buy stuff after you can afford it. >Insurance is a way to split a risk from a property. For example, if I own a house there’s a risk it burns down. With fire insurance, you keep the house, but the insurer takes on the risk, in exchange for a fee. I'm against insurance companies too. Have a public insurance fund instead.

martin-t 1y ago

Oh, yeah, 5 upvotes and 2 comments, then suddenly 7 downvotes without any replies. Totally organic.

izacus 1y ago

I'm really fascinated about heavy downvotes for your post because it makes a lot of sense. I wonder who the people who show up to defend IP law are in these conversations. Why do it? What's the gain?

martin-t 1y ago
Who knows? Votes should be public, otherwise this is an easy way to make opinions less visible without having to provide any justification. Sometimes very similar comments in favor of protecting producers get upvotes on one post and downvotes on another. I also started seeing a pattern - even if a particular comment ends up downvoted in the end, there's usually a few upvotes first, sometimes with comments, then downvotes quickly to get it negative and there's never any comments justifying it and few if any comments after it gets negative. This indicates downvoting works well to silence the discussion.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  When you think about it, it really doesn't make much difference if it's a downvote-a-bot or not. If it acts like a bot, walks like a bot, and quacks like a bot, it might as well be a bot. Nobody's comments are read only by humans any more.

n8m8 1y ago

"protects the wrong entities (corporations instead of individuals who did the real work)" > laughs in Capitalism