this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
208 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

2444 readers
522 users here now

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 onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost 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 communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone 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 attacksAny 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 tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andMoonsValue@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Current IP law may be too over reaching but I do like the idea that if an artist writes a song, or paints a picture others can't just make copies and sell it. Similarly, if someone makes some invention its nice that there is an incentive to publish the technology openly for everyone to understand how it works, and in return they get to profit from their discovery for a set number of years.

Some design patents and patent tolls are obviously bad, but I think for the most part its a decent system. What compromise would you propose?

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Copyrights aren't for you, or for that artist that writes a song, or paints a picture. They exists to maintain profits of large corporations. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it "protects the little person", but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.

As such, I would like to extend this to 'delete all copyright law'.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

How about requiring IPs to belong to a specific person, with a set expiry of say 10 years? Corporations wouldn't be able to own IP, only pay for the usage rights (for the first 10 years).

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This is just wrong. If you write a book, you own that book. Many people sell art.

What this would do is make it so that creating isn't profitable for people. Why write a book that people can just take for free. So creatives won't be able to make money from creating, so they'll do something else.

This sounds like a dystopian future where everyone is a factory worker, and people are cheering it on at the thought of "free stuff."

Is the IP system broken? Hell yes. But the answer isn't just to get rid of it. The legal system is broken, would we just get rid of laws too? Since they protect the rich, they're just bad?

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is just wrong. If you write a book, you own that book. Many people sell art.

If you want to publish a book, you have to contact a publisher, and they will acquire the rights to publish your book. If you want to publish an album, you have to give up your rights to the music publisher. You don't really "own" your media at that point.

Also, compared to the number of artists out there, many people don't sell art. A select few sell art, and the rest are broke.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

This argument falls apart with the very basic concept of self publishing which many do.

It also ignores that you get a deal with that publisher and still get paid. Without IP they don't have to pay you.

Come on people...