Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
view the rest of the comments
I am hard side eyeing everyone who are pro abolishment of IP laws. You are either mindless consumers who have never spent time and effort creating anything yourselves your entire lives, or you haven't thought this through.
I hope for the latter.
I've created lots of things. The moment I finish creating it, I sign over my IP rights in exchange for money for food, and never have a right to it again.
Without IP law, the thing I created would at least be in the commons where I can still legally use it.
(I agree with your point, some IP law could be better than none. But I'll assert that a total void of all IP law would be better than what we have now.
And we need to theaten to void it all, to get the current rights holders to negotiate. Frankly, I don't think they will. I think we need to void all IP law and then encourage the next generation to create some new IP law after we starve our current billionaires.)
(All this is in spite of my objection to being on the same side of any argument with Jack Dorsey. I have no illusion that his motives are pro-social.)
voiding all IP law would literally bankrupt the entire media industry, crashing tens if not hundreds of billions out of the industry practically overnight.
Voiding all IP law would cause a huge loss in the creative community.
If people can no longer pay their bills by creating then they stop creating and work. If I can't pay my bills by writing a book or creating art and selling it (because I don't own what I create), then I stop doing that and get a job at Walmart. Why dump years and your heart and soul into a great book just to have it distributed for free and be poor. Creating would become a pure luxury.
I agree. I wouldn't be in favor of "burn it down" if I thought we could negotiate better terms with our current IP oligarchs.
I'll still be available to do creative work. It wouldn't change my current work-for-hire efforts.
Very little valuable IP is held by actual creators, today.
Are you an actual published creator, or a temporarily embarrassed future billionaire? Is there a version of success for you that isn't just selling to a big IP company to get enough money to retire? That's what it looks like, to me. The peak of my possible success would be to write something that threatens/tempts the big IP holders enough to force them to buy me out. If I don't take the buy out, they eventually bury my thing with their advertising power.
I don't really disagree with you. I'm actually in favor of keeping and fixing IP laws, if that's possible.
But I believe the IP laws we have now only serve our billionaire employers. So, as a creator, I won't fight to keep our current IP laws.
So since we can't save it, we just burn it down? The legal system isn't doing so hot either, should we just get rid of laws? I mean rich people can break then and regular people can't, should we just get rid of them since we can't fix it right now?
I don't know what kind of work you do, but it would impact many. You can't show drafts, you can't present mock-ups, etc, because they can just take those. You could make art for someone saying they will pay and then they don't. You could get a refund, but they just copied the art and it's theirs now.
This also harms people who in literature especially. They don't own the book they write. And for anyone to appreciate it, they also have the ability to give it away for free. But I guess since it doesn't impact you, it's somehow not a problem?
This may be true, but guess how they lost that IP? They sold it. They owned it and were able to sell it to a bigger company that could run away with it. Without IP the selling part goes away, they just take it and run away with it. I mean come on, how do you think authors make money?
But that falls apart when I have actually created and sold software. I have created IP. And I've had actually to defend my personal IP from a previous employer.
What? You're just making up a scenario in your head. If you can sell your IP to company and live comfortably for the rest of your life while they do all the heavy lifting and you get paid while people enjoy what you create, how is that some big loss? Because you want all the money? Sure, then self publish, it's an option. Start a small LLC, people do it, stop acting like it's the only way forward.
I mean, false. This is just wrong, people have created companies, brands, book series, etc. This just seems like you have decided you have no chance so you don't try and want to tear down the system so you can get yours.
I personally fear that if such a decision was passed, we would see big companies find loopholes and exceptions and/or they would make their profit entirely by stealing from creators without compensation or acknowledgements.
You want to hurt the big companies so badly you're willing to saw the branch they, you and everybody else sit on just so you can see them fall.
I doubt the big companies will be the ones who will feel threatened into negotiations if IP laws were abolished. They would flourish with their businesses and the AI tech bros would have field day making billions by stealing from all of us.
Your utopia is every creator's nightmare.
Why on earth does every interpretation you have start with the assumption that people advocating for the destruction of IP are not also simultaneously arguing for the destruction of any company who could find a workaround? You're approaching this from the silliest angle ever. The person you're arguing against doesn't exist. Anyone who is truely against IP also wants any company who is currently profiting off of IP to be destroyed along with it
It's such a weird take. Also, "creator" shouldn't be a job. Nothing that isn't critical to human survival should be part of the monetary system. Art should only exist for arts sake and everyone should be afforded enough time to pursue it fully without worrying about survival
No IP + universal income is the only moral way forward
I didn't say "utopia". We need IP laws. But since we continue to let Disney (and other mega corporations) dictate the entire terms of engagement - we need to bring "burning the whole thing down and starting over" into the list of options under consideration. It's the only way to bring Disney back to the bargaining table, at minimum.
Edit: A more practical approach would be to disolve every company that has engaged in an illegal merger (most large US companies). But I think that's actually harder to accomplish, today, than voiding all IP law. It's a better option, if we can swing it. The necessary laws are already on the books, they're simply un-enforced.
I believe it would be darker than mere loopholes. Corporations would probably both protect their own IP and steal each others' IP through militant means. Like, Cyberpunk 2077 could become reality.
No. Militant means aren't needed when no IP exists, especially when we use the same force we're discussing to enforce the "no IP" issue to enforce the "not trade secrets" rider that goes along with it. IP is a blight and are shouldn't be a job. The commercialization of art is forcing you to excuse millions of preventable deaths because you don't also want to address the issue that we allow people to work far longer per week than is natural or right. If you were still surviving on 20hrs of labor a week like all of humanity did pre capitalism, you wouldn't be bitching so much about your art being stolen because art would return to a leisure pursuit for you where it should be.
You're being fucked so hard you've completely lost sight of what's important and it's allowing you to justify genocide by withholding access to lifesaving drugs because you want to make money off a drawing