IP Laws are Not Real

There is absolutely no such thing as intellectual property. It is just a concept that (((they))) have beaten into you, again, and again. I have a 10 year old sibling that WORRIES about copyright and intellectual property, the typical 'all rights reservist' posting on youtube, the minecraft forums, newgrounds. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs. That children are exposed to the united state's retarded "intellectual property" "laws" created to protect the proprietary media assets of a select few companies. The only reason people should pay them any heed is because they live in the US. But a lot of people follow them and they don't live in the US. They live in western, "first world" countries like Germany and France, getting assraped by the big black cock of the american president every day they get copyright striked by some ameriKKKan corp. It's a damn bloody shame that the internet is beholden to national laws like it's something that can be contained, it can't. So why do glitterboys like you try and protect these laws? If you're able to snatch a character from a franchise, do it, if you're able to snatch a proprietary technique do it and USE IT. Want to use the leaked windows XP code? Use a tor-hosted git repository, or move to Khazakhstan and set your own codeberg up! It doesn't fuarrrking matter. Laws aren't real they're just lies we make up so we can send our rivals to the slammer.

I think you will find the concept of ip being a bullshit social construct is pretty well known. This is sincerely not the mind blowing original take you seem to think it is, considering most modern ip law is based on legal precedent from the Disney company protecting its assets. >(((they))) > So why do glitterboys like you try and protect these laws? Nobody is doing that but soyface marvel fans or whatever, none of who are on lainchan. Go back to 8chan you pretentious sweaty fuarrrk. Does it smell good with your head lodged that far up your colon?

many countries have laws related to this type of thing, calling it just an American problem is pretty silly. also: yes, laws are made up, and not always enforced, but it is good to know what you can get away with (and what it will cost you to get away with it). People tend to trade their freedoms to live in countries that arent Somalia, but if you value freedom entierly, perhaps somalia is right for you.

>>55746 What the fuarrrk is wrong with somalia? I have a friend online how lives there and he says its just like every other third world country, and third world countries aren't even that bad. You've consumed too much CIA World Factbook propaganda, dipshit.

nothing wrong with somalia. normal people are dumb. Still its a choice, nice to have so many flavours of contry. Some people like germany, some like USA, some like somalia.To each his own.

I'll let you in on a secret OP. All laws are not real. It's a made up story. Our civilization runs on shared fiction.

>>55749 >if disney went broke thats a funny way of spelling 'without laws'. And no, of course the US wouldn't be somalia, but it wouldnt be the US as we know it, either.

>>55752 i thought we're talking about IP law, not law in general or am i missing something

>>55741 >leaked windows XP code It's nearly free to copy and distribute, sure, but was the R&D to get there free? Could or would Bill Microsoft have created it without legal assurance he could recoup his time? What about movies with effects by Industrial Light & Magic that take 38 machine hours per frame to render? What do you think Pfizer, bless their hearts, would do if every really worthwhile drug they developed was instantly whisked away into the public domain? Would the next great American novel be written if the only publishing house were Library Genesis? I'm not trying to argue that copyright is required to produce anything worth digital distribution. It's not. But a lot of industries that produce a lot of stuff that a lot of people seem to like would be impossible without it. I agree that copyright is due for at least an overhaul and maybe even abolition, but it wouldn't be free.

>>55741 In my experience, the only time people think IP laws are valid are when discussing much smaller creators and projects. The law on IP doesn't account for power or popularity, it treats small individuals and corporations in the exact same manner. Without IP law, or a concept of some kind of IP, popular large corporations would run rampant stealing ideas from those trying to make a name for themselves. (This isn't to say that big corps don't already do that though, there's probably a legal loophole to exploit). IP law is extremely fuarrrked up, the way it's written right now. But getting rid of it altogether puts smaller and less popular creators at risk of having their work stolen by big corpo. Copyright law and IP law definitely need re-writes.

>>55811 >What do you think Pfizer, bless their hearts, would do if every really worthwhile drug they developed was instantly whisked away into the public domain? They would cease to exist and their infrastructure, internal research, etc. would become public domain as well. There is literally no downside to this scenario. >Would the next great American novel be written if the only publishing house were Library Genesis?

>>55813 And the drugs Pfizer hasn't invented yet? Again, I'm not trying to argue that there's no alternative to the current pharmaceutical industry, but you can't flat plunder the future and call it free.

>>55814 the pharmapseutical industry has good and bad qualities, but a lot of them are bad. A lot of research nowadays sometimes is motivated by trying to develope new drugs that they can still hold the patent to, so they can market them and control them. Patents dont last as long as copyright, so they continually need to develope new things that aren't always better. There might be some good research going on, but if it is I get the impression its usually for very niche diseases. Without IP law there would still be a drug industry most likely, as there will still be demand for drugs, and synthesizing them to high purity at scale is a difficult task. Furthermore, IP doesn't preculude the keeping of secrets. A hypothetical drug company could still in theory develop and market a new and useful drug and profit off it simply by being the only people who know how to make it (or the only people who know how to make it efficiently -- chemical synthesis can be hard). The ostensible point of the patent is to prevent such secrets from being taken to their authors graves, but still give the author the right to their use.

On the topic of Art Publication, it could be argued that a lot of the laws that exist were created to protect the producers of such material in an age when its production and distribution were expensive. If I wrote a book, and wish to have it published to a mass audience in 1900, I will need to get a publisher, or at any rate access to printing and binding and such things. These are expensive, so a publisher wishes to have certain control over what he's publishing -- an other publisher could jump in otherwise and duplicate his effort with the bonus of not having to pay the author -- lest all his potential income be lost. Likewise for most mass media. Nowadays though, if I want a book published (after a fashion, anyway), I can concievably just stick it online and poof, a thousand copies. Ten thousand if I want. Its a different world. This leaves organizations like disney in an awkward place. Novels have generally been the work of one or a few people, but films tend to be large, expensive collaborations, and now both are subject to this cheap duplication.

>>55814 there would still be labs and scientists doing research, there just wouldn't be Pfizer. Where's the loss?

>>55817 eyyy whos to say pfizer wouldnt make it through. It doesnt really matter it would likely be the same actual people on the ground doing the research, but we're focusing on these companies that would be destroyed. Companies can be pretty resilient things, their buisness model's destruction doesnt always mean their destruction. Doesnt really matter though, the thing is changing the industry, not destroying this or that company.

>>55814 There is literally no downside. You are fuarrrking retarded.

>>55813 >>Would the next great American novel be written if the only publishing house were Library Genesis? Yes, only absolute morons become authors and expect to get rich off of it. The vast majority of authors don't even expect to be able to live off of it, and that could be solved by sponsoring the arts.

>55813 >Would the next great American novel be written if the only publishing house were Library Genesis? I am not sure that all IP is trash, but its definitely non-sense to say the production of culture requires commercial publishers to exist and make money on publishing. A few things should make you skeptical 1.) Culture before capitalism exists. Why does the Illiad, Odessey, Vigirl, ... until today exist? How about ancient music and poetry, mathematics? 2.) Large amounts of culture are produced today for non-commercial purposes. Music especially. 3.) Folk Culture exists and has Really, humans are incapable of not producing culture. We naturally sing, make music, and now write.

I'm a patent examiner but I fully agree with OP. Not sure how to conflate the two to be honest.

>>55817 >>55894 No downside *now*. >IP law means discovering a new drug makes cash >Fat cats spend cash on discovering new drugs >Change IP law so discovering a new drug makes less cash >Fat cats spend less cash on discovering new drugs That's just an illustration. My point isn't that IP shouldn't be changed or abolished; it's that the question of whether to do so should be a specific cost-benefit analysis. You don't want to kill the R&D golden goose, and you definitely don't want to incentivize keeping secrets, as Lain mentioned >>55815 An example of something that 100% should be abolished is putting publicly-funded studies behind Elsevier paywalls.

>>55902 Drug R&D is a meme, most of the development is funded by governments or independent researchers. Companies don't actually make any new drugs they buy ip and jack up the price and make small changes to keep that ip. Most of the medical miracles were released publicly non profit to help people only to be bought out and overcharged, knowingly because you can't say no to your life, it's not business it's extortion.

>>55905 Whether research is done in-house or outsourced doesn't change the basic funding or incentive model. Public funds being used for R&D on drugs that are then privately patented would be a problem, but a different problem. "Small changes" to drugs are usually made to circumvent patents (or bans), not to extend them (not that there isn't plenty of legal fuarrrkery used to extend patent protection, which, again, is a different problem). >extortion Compared to what? If X years patent protection gets drugs available >X years sooner, it's good, prices be damned, because in that case the alternative isn't a cheaper drug, but the drug—a life-saving drug, in your example—not existing over that time interval. And I don't think you meant this, but if you're insinuating that X should be zero, consider that it is perfectly legal to keep a drug's formulation or even existence completely secret.

>>55741 >first world problems HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

>>55905 >most of the development is funded by governments or independent researchers do you have source for that claim or are you just talking out of your ass?

>>55811 Wouldn't be free. Would be fuarrrking expensive, even. Would be worth it.

>>55909 >If X years patent protection gets drugs available >X years sooner, it's good, prices be damned, because in that case the alternative isn't a cheaper drug, but the drug—a life-saving drug, in your example—not existing over that time interval. Why would patent protection mean the drug gets there significantly faster? You can't rush the scientific process very much, if you're seriously working at a breakneck pace to isolate and test a new drug (which will generally lead to more mistakes) you *might* get there 6 months or so sooner than if you'd just plodded along and did everything right. That's how it works in chemical engineering, I assume it's much the same in pharma. If you can't make money by being the only person allowed to manufacture a drug, you can split into a drug manufacturing company and a drug R&D company. The manufacturing company would obviously still be in a competitive marketplace, and in turn the R&D company would fund itself primarily by auctioning out expertise to manufacturing companies. Yeah maybe the chemical structure and the basic steps of lab synthesis are public info, but if you really want to beat the competition to market by a few months you need to get our Premium Package that includes insider information about how to manufacture it at scale. Considering how tight the competition would be for manufacturers, they'd pay through the nose for that. >And I don't think you meant this, but if you're insinuating that X should be zero, consider that it is perfectly legal to keep a drug's formulation or even existence completely secret. that should be considered a crime. Possibly a crime against humanity, if the drug would save the lives of millions of people (for instance, a cure for a particularly nasty viral infection).

>>56202 >Why would patent protection mean the drug gets there significantly faster maybe you can't make science happen faster, but the default state is for it not to be happening at all. Giving incentives makes it more likely that more people, and more compotent people, will be working on a given problem. The idea is that pattents are in general an incentive for people to make new things (and make them public), because it gives them a government protected power to make profit off of them, and people generally like profit. >keeping important secrets should be illegal Patents are basically a lighter touch way of trying to achieve this same goal. I think they're more likely to be effective because it is very easy to not have ideas, or not do research, and of course secrets are by their nature difficult to find, but thats just me. I like your thoughts about splitting companies with R&D vs manufacture, but I think the biggest goal is still getting the secrets out. Another thing to think about: noncompete & nondisclosure rules relate pretty strongly to this, for they are means by which companies try to control their secrets. As was just pointed out, patents don't really cover everything and there's a thousand little tricks and tips that smart people in an industry have, that are sometimes important, and unlike pattented materials they often arent written down publicly. Not sure what the best way of handling that would be, but I was just thinking about it.

>>55909 > africa needs hiv >no money for patent >requests just to be allowed to produce meds >no fuarrrk you our money >your deads >we totally still care though but saving africa ;) >patent is about to run out and generics might sell cheap >change formula slightly >rebrand and patent new formula >deals with health insurance to sell new one >cant get generic with insurance power of patents. The game is one big scam where the scammer tells you its for your own good and the naive people lack the knowledge to know better than agree.

>>55747 >>55748 never knew anything about somalia, researched a bit about their nation and history, they seem really cool. I might wanna move there one day actually.

>>56203 >The idea is that pattents are in general an incentive for people to make new things (and make them public), because it gives them a government protected power to make profit off of them, and people generally like profit. Sure, theoretically. But they can be a perverse incentive too, as people try to figure out ways to either sit on patents and extract rent with them or use their exclusive rights to price-gouge. There are other incentive structures you could come up with that could work much better. If patents worked exactly the way they were meant to work, they would be great. But they don't, much like copyright they're now used by the big players to keep their station secure at the expense of everyone else. >>56209 depends where in Somalia. The south part has been a civil war fest for decades but it's coming together. South part is actually an unrecognized independent & completely stable nation called Somaliland, and the horn of Africa is called Puntland which has always been sort of a wild west area. The borders you see on a map are completely arbitrary. Main reason the "Somalia is an anarchist soykafhole failed state!" narrative gets pushed is so that nobody has to care about what the natives have to say about dumping soykaf in their waters or international shipping.

>>56226 sorry the NORTH part is Somaliland. It would be pretty cool to live there too I think.

oh yeah bro the war is over people will just instantly forget what happened and you wont get killed for looking slightly like the enemy

I don't think we would have likely got anime without copyright protection even if you say "oh so what if american capesht marvel filmerinos were never made", there are some anime that I am happy to have seen and wish to live in the world where they might have been made. patents may be fake (as you can violate a patent from your basement laboratory tinkering without so much as access or interaction with your supposed victim's product), but I think at least copyright (albeit far less than, say, American laws provision for) is part of the natural law. while some media (say, programming, and certain literature) can exist and somewhat thrive with absent [waived] copyright, I do not think film has essentially the same characteristics that allow it to be built in a guerrilla way "for free" like software can