3 ms·
Yeah, I would argue that, just systemically, intellectual property laws can't really do anything but overwhelmingly serve the interests of the wealthy and mega
by logicprog 8mo ago
Yeah, I would argue that, just systemically, intellectual property laws can't really do anything but overwhelmingly serve the interests of the wealthy and mega corporations. I also think they're ethically wrong and run counter to the kind of artistic and information culture that I would prefer, but those are arguments more people are likely to disagree on.
- spudlyo 8mo agoI think most people would argue that dismantling intellectual property would mean the end of all new creative endeavors, as if humanity is only driven to create art for practical reasons. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, would argue that true art must serve absolutely no practical or utilitarian purpose, and that pecuniary concerns only corrupt artistic and intellectual labors leading to mediocrity and dishonesty.
- paxys 8mo agoCopyright laws as we know them came into being sometime in the 18th century. The earliest recorded works of art produced by humans are from 40,000-45,000 BC. So it's hard to take the "we'll never have creative output without strict copyright!!" extremism seriously.
- rerdavies 8mo agoThe original printing of the King James Bible had copyright protection (and still does, in the UK). 1611.
- logicprog 8mo ago> Schopenhauer, on the other hand, would argue that true art must serve absolutely no practical or utilitarian purpose, and that pecuniary concerns only corrupt artistic and intellectual labors leading to mediocrity and dishonesty. As, similarly, would Bataille, one of the philosophers I'm interested in!