Yes please
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
208 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
2444 readers
462 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 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
!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
Yes, now that rich people want to break the law to create AI we should just make it legal for them.
Yes. Because individuals stand to gain far, FAR more than corporations if IP law disappeared.
No, this has enormous implications to break the monopolies of many companies and supply chains. Companies like Broadcom and Qualcomm only exist because of their anticompetitive IP nonsense. This is everything anyone could ever dream of for Right to Repair. It stops Nintendo's nonsense. It kills Shimano's anti competitive bicycle monopoly.
Every frivolous nonsense thing has been patented. Patents are not at all what they were intended to be. They are primary weapons of the super rich to prevent anyone from entering and competing in the market. Patents are given for the most vague nonsense so that any competitive product can be drug through years of legal nonsense just to exist. It is not about infringement of novel ideas. It is about creating an enormous cost barrier to protect profiteering from stagnation by milking every possible penny from the cheapest outdated junk.
IP is also used for things like criminal professors creating exorbitantly priced textbook scams to extort students.
All of that goes away if IP is ditched. The idea that some author has a right to profit from something for life is nonsense; the same with art. No one makes a fortune by copying others unless they are simply better artists. Your skills are your protection and those that lack the skills have no right to use their wealth to suppress others. The premise of IP is largely based on an era when access to publishing and production was extremely limited and required large investments. That is not the case any more; that is not the world we live in. Now those IP tools are used for exactly the opposite of their original purpose and suppressing art and innovation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Businesses were innovative long before patents and copyright became a thing. In fact, evidence shows that society was more innovative without patents and copyright than with.
For your reading pleasure:
load more comments
(3 replies)
IP = Imaginary Property
IP = internet protocol
I hate agreeing with a CEO.
Don't worry, he's probably being disingenuous and likely has ulterior motives.
He wants to steal everyone's ideas to train an AI. But not get sued for it.
Abolishing IP law entirely is stupid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
🏴☠️
And that is bad why...?
Intellectual property, the sheer concept that an idea, or color, or shape can be owned at all is absurd if you really think about it. There is certainly room for a fair compromise of appropriate and proportional compensation for the actual inventors or creators of something, but our current system of intellectual property and patents is silly and hostile to human nature.
If Jack Dorsey proposes something and Elon Musk agrees I'd be wary to see it as a good idea.
I'm big on copy left, but I agree
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?
load more comments
(5 replies)
No IP laws encourage people to keep new inventions/technologies/creative works secret so that they can solely profit off of it. By ensuring a period where people are guaranteed the benefits of their creations society can coerce them into contributing to the collective knowledge base.
I think 5yrs is a suitable timeframe for copyright. Incentives sharing while also ensuring ideas can be promptly built off of and discorouging companies to hoard intellectual property for as long as possible while they drain every last dollar out.
Say the numbers of pi long enough and eventually you'll commit a federal crime.