8 ms·

The main problems right now are the IP laws IMO. They are way too heavily skewed for the benefit of the creator and not society, which makes building any innova

The main problems right now are the IP laws IMO. They are way too heavily skewed for the benefit of the creator and not society, which makes building any innovation a game of begging. And gives the creator power to kill said innovation. I would love shorter terms and some form of FRAND compulsory licensing.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pc86 12y ago
The content I create does not belong to society. It belongs to me. If I want to kill it that is my right.
- lbotos 12y ago
  I agree with you in theory, in practice we know this isn't the case. The way content is shared in 2014 and data is duplicated you don't have that right anymore if you are creating any type of digital content. Not out of some "overarching evil" but out of people's desire to share.
  - pc86 12y ago
    A right is not a right if the desires of people I have never met abrogates it.
    - lbotos 12y ago
      Aren't you agreeing with me then? Let's use a real world example: Flappy Bird. It was the author's right to take down his creation from the App Store and he did. He owned that. People are still using it (he can't remove it from their devices) and as long as one copy exists outside of his hand's people can infringe on his right: http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/ http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad... I want to understand you better. Can you clarify?
- icebraining 12y ago
  All property (intellectual or physical) is partly shared between the owner and society; you can't really do anything you want with your land or building. Why should intellectual property be any different, especially after you've distributed copies to others?
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Because he created it and he gets to determine who/what/when/where/why it is used?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      You're just repeating what was said; what is missing is a justification. You may believe it's self-evident that creation should confer absolute control, but it really isn't - especially after copies have been sold to others.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        Why? Just because you deem it so? The creator gets to control the use of their product...because thats the law as it currently stands.
        Malician 12y ago
        Only in copyright law does "The law is currently this" stand in as an argument for, "And, therefore, the law should exist in this form, or one even more stringent, for all eternity." He is arguing the law should change, as it should. He advanced arguments, which you may dislike, for why it should. And you respond with, simply, "the law currently says this."
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Great, but you wanting the law to change doesn't in fact mean you get to ignore the law as it exists today.
- baddox 12y ago
  If you sell me physical media containing a copy of your content, or transmit to me a digital representation of a copy of your content, the copy does not belong to you or to society. It belongs to me. If you want to kill it, that is not your right.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pc86 12y ago

The content I create does not belong to society. It belongs to me. If I want to kill it that is my right.

lbotos 12y ago
I agree with you in theory, in practice we know this isn't the case. The way content is shared in 2014 and data is duplicated you don't have that right anymore if you are creating any type of digital content. Not out of some "overarching evil" but out of people's desire to share.
- pc86 12y ago
  A right is not a right if the desires of people I have never met abrogates it.
  - lbotos 12y ago
    Aren't you agreeing with me then? Let's use a real world example: Flappy Bird. It was the author's right to take down his creation from the App Store and he did. He owned that. People are still using it (he can't remove it from their devices) and as long as one copy exists outside of his hand's people can infringe on his right: http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/ http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad... I want to understand you better. Can you clarify?
icebraining 12y ago
All property (intellectual or physical) is partly shared between the owner and society; you can't really do anything you want with your land or building. Why should intellectual property be any different, especially after you've distributed copies to others?
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Because he created it and he gets to determine who/what/when/where/why it is used?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You're just repeating what was said; what is missing is a justification. You may believe it's self-evident that creation should confer absolute control, but it really isn't - especially after copies have been sold to others.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      Why? Just because you deem it so? The creator gets to control the use of their product...because thats the law as it currently stands.
      - Malician 12y ago
        Only in copyright law does "The law is currently this" stand in as an argument for, "And, therefore, the law should exist in this form, or one even more stringent, for all eternity." He is arguing the law should change, as it should. He advanced arguments, which you may dislike, for why it should. And you respond with, simply, "the law currently says this."
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Great, but you wanting the law to change doesn't in fact mean you get to ignore the law as it exists today.
baddox 12y ago
If you sell me physical media containing a copy of your content, or transmit to me a digital representation of a copy of your content, the copy does not belong to you or to society. It belongs to me. If you want to kill it, that is not your right.