Intellectual property

I tried here >>>23047 (Controversial opinion thread) but: > Thread has reached its maximum reply limit. So i create new thread There are basically only two IP arguments: >Piracy is theft https://mylogicalfallacy.com/definitional-retreat/ >The claim that the information may be property Giving someone ownership of information means restricting everyone else's rights to manage their property to the extent that that property could be used to reproduce and share information covered by intellectual property law. In short, IP =! Material property. >Without IP, we will die of hunger, lack of innovation and masterpieces This is the argument that slavery must be maintained, otherwise it will be less cotton, it will be more expensive, it will be of lower quality and the ROI will be lower than expected. Not only was slavery abolished because it was right, but it also turned out that the situation with cotton has not only not worsened, but is much better. >But how would musicians and movie makers make profits? Would software engineering/programming even be a high paying job anymore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software >B-but it doesn't work! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_open-source_applications_and_services I assume that the IP-murderers do not care about finding the truth about reality, which gives a chance to determine who is right, but about infusing themselves with an ideological stick based on ideas they have invented, created precisely to cause antagonism.

>>26554 >There are basically only two IP arguments I think you could have made more effort to find a stronger argument. Those two are kind of strawmen. To understand the problem a thing is trying to solve you need to go back to before the thing. Before intellectual property, craftsmen formed guilds and all information was secret. To learn a craft you had to buy your way into a guild and beg them to teach it to you. And if you published what you learned then the guild loses its competitive advantage. If there is no upside to sharing knowledge then knowledge remains secret. So the point of intellectual property laws was to make it possible for people to profit from sharing information and then get people from different guilds, or no guilds, to build on top of each other's knowledge and create better technology for everyone.

>>26559 Its more like one king thought hey my serf has a great idea but we cant produce for entire world. How about i sell the idea itself. Dude was after minmaxing his own wallet nothing else.

>>26560 >Its more like one king thought hey my serf has a great idea but we cant produce for entire world. What was this king's name? And what "great ideas" do you think illiterate serfs had?

>>26561 Its high school education so forgot details, i believe it was about something with cotton. I tried to dig quick but i got a lot of ancient greece&co first cases not the transition middle ages -> now. This reminded me of another thing though: guilds didnt keep it all secret. There was immense knowledge exchange over journeymen which apt to the name traveled to other places to learn their craft and bring new knowledge back home. I found in fact while digging in wikipedia that the german trade chamber was trying to oppose ip laws. Makes sense when you have a culture of exchange and are right in the middle of it in europe. From an economical standpoint you also have to see the practical application - there was no way to enforce ip laws. hollywood exists for the same reason - it was a place they fled to avoid camera patents. A lot of the modern big corps got big because they grew by ignoring the very same laws they now tell you to follow.

>>26559 >So the point of intellectual property laws was to make it possible for people to profit from sharing information and then get people from different guilds, or no guilds, to build on top of each other's knowledge and create better technology for everyone. The IP concept was born at the age of 18, when control seemed like a good idea and the abundance was not yet obvious as it required an investment in machinery and materials. But we are in the 21st century and the abundance is a fact. Duplicating an idea costs nothing. Sometimes it is expensive to produce, but that doesn't mean the concept (business model) from the 18th century still makes sense. Because everyone can see that there is not. The market finds solutions to such problems thanks to competition. Those who have to do some things for hundreds of millions today will be ousted by those who can do alternatives for a fraction of the amount. And thanks to it (IP is not a product of the free market, but an artificial anti-market monopoly), competition will increase and reward those who can. The author must count on what each of us must count on when he needs work - that there will be someone who will pay him for this work. Being an author does not release you from the obligation to obtain remuneration for your work, by way of an agreement with someone who voluntarily decides to pay for this work.

>there are only two arguments yeah no you likely a glitterboy how about this argument; what ever i see and like i will also copy in its original format and quality and redistribute because i do not give a fuarrrking soykaf

>>26564 what does it change?

Is OP pic ironic or what? That arrangement of sprockets won't move.

>>26570 >Is OP pic ironic or what? That arrangement of sprockets won't move. That's precisely OP's point. Copyright is a fundamentally non-functional system.

>>26576 You'd be surprised just how much Japan cares about that idiocy.

>>26578 People don't care about copyright until someone publishes pictures of them for everyone to see online.

>>26580 People's faces are not copyrightable. Different laws protect that, not copyright.

>>26554 I find the claim of slavery being bad far more questionable than the claim of intellectual property being bad, so that part of the argument could be inverted.

>>26659 You can't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

>>26661 Let's be realistic.

>>26570 >>26578 That's not the real reason, it was made by a retarded graphics designer girl in home office while sitting at a scented desk with lots of tiny cute things that make her feel safe.

>>26664 i'm realistic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(evolution) there is nothing difficult to understand that if they did something wrong out there, they can do it to me.

>being pedantic AND wrong look closer you wannabe autists, the small gears dont connect to both big gears. It wouldnt jam therefore. If anything its awfully accurate. Licensing looks connected to Author protection from a distance but on closer inspection its not.

>>26559 >So the point of intellectual property laws was to make it possible for people to profit from sharing information and then get people from different guilds, or no guilds, to build on top of each other's knowledge and create better technology for everyone. There is a very practical point in here about the utility of patents (but not copyright or trademark). Full disclosure: even if this were true, I would oppose them on ideological grounds, but I'm willing to set this aside for the moment and consider whether patents actually do encourage innovation. Well, do they? What happens when you tell someone how to do something, but then do not allow them to actually do it without paying a fee? This is an empirical question, and I actually think it would be productive to discuss whether it is supported by the evidence. If it is indeed true, then this is an important result that even patent abolitionists should take into account, because it reframes the issue from elimination to replacement.

>>26675 There is a more practical problem. You invent wheels, i invent motor. We cant agree? Guess nobody gets to build a car. This is also why big companies build up patent walls by patenting everything they can come up with even if it doesn't hold up in court if contested. Its a natural hurdle to deal with the workload going through hundreds of patents to do the little thing you want to do.

>>26559 >And if you published what you learned then the guild loses its competitive advantage. >build on top of each other's knowledge and create better technology for everyone. Both of these make no sense since you don't get employed by a company when you pay for their IP nor are you allowed to build on top of their IP.

>>28291 Nvm I was thinking of copyrights, not IP.

>>26554 How do you exercise the right to copy, store and share anything a corporation or other person produces, simultaneously restricting other persons and corporations from copying, storing and sharing your data? Sounds like doublethink to me.

>>28358 > restricting other persons and corporations Red herring?

>>26675 >What happens when you tell someone how to do something, but then do not allow them to actually do it without paying a fee? They won't pay the fee unless they expect to gain a higher profit. >discuss whether it is supported by the evidence Compare China vs the US in terms of innovation. >this is an important result that even patent abolitionists should take into account You don't really understand your own side until you understand the other side. If any of these arguments are news to you then you're just a braindead religious zealot shllling one side because it's "your" side not because you actually understand anything.

saw this thread in the catalog. Don't have anything to add except to avoid the IP field at all costs my bros. It is like kicking dead whales down the beach complete balls whether you work at a law firm or for the USPTO. If you live in first world country that isn't the USA, then being a patent examiner might be a good gig because it seems foreign examiners can get away with soykaf that USA examiners can't. t. works in US IP field; hates his life

With experimentation come great things. Doesn't matter.

>>28358 the difference between "your data" and something you have published is that "your data" is generally something you would never put out there intentionally. Also, corporations aren't people.