EnsignWashout

Thanks!

Voiding all IP law would cause a huge loss in the creative community.

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.

If people can no longer pay their bills by creating then they stop creating and work.

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.

Why dump years and your heart and soul into a great book just to have it distributed for free and be poor.

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.

Your utopia is every creator's nightmare.

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.

There's various builds for Raspberry Pi that make decent media centers.

Jeff Bezos never smashed the window on my car to steal my speakers,

True.

he doesnt come out vandalising public transport or parks and he isnt the reason my wife doesnt feel safe walking around at night.

If we could even comprehend the scale of his unpaid taxes, or their impact on our parks, we might discuss this at length...

Movie theaters are really expensive, so I'm not paying attention to what Hollywood is making right now.

So the first few are classic math definitions for 0, 1, and 2.

After that I got bored.

• Have you also experienced this worsening of DuckDuckGo?

Yes.

• Which other more privacy-respecting alternatives do you recommend?

I'm in the same boat. I'll be trying out these answers.

Is also very very queer tho JSYK

That could be our new Lemmy slogan.

There's a couple of them, I think.

I found this one:

https://lemmy.ca/c/witchesvspatriarchy

Edit: Better link:

!witchesvspatriarchy@lemmy.ca

Thanks!

Also doesn't the GPL use IP law for enforcement of copy left?

That's very probably Jack Dorsey's motive in this. Briefly void all IP law, then restore it in a messy way that leaves everything owned by his lawyers.

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.)