Philosophy The Morality/Immorality of Intellectual Property

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Well, the outcome would have not been different if his stuff was public domain.

Then any idiot would have been able to write anything in his universe, but the sheer amount of stuff would cancel itself out.

As a fan of HPL and Dune I can attest, we have literally had C'thulhu porn published.

We have lots of we wuz kangz anti-HPL fanfics published.

We have had a decent amount of politically correct crap, period drama, C'thulhu vs. Sherlock Holmes and the like.
Dune, well, got 3 words for you, Kevin J. Anderson.
And yes, I am a proud Talifan.

The crap sinks and some of the better things drift to the top.

Do like I do and ignore all sequels and adaptations.

Also, IMHO it is better to have a thousand irrelevant fanfics rhan 1 piece of crap like KJA's "official" sequels.

this this a million times this. I'll add the one good thing about a multiverse is that if some bad writer comes along and crashes the narrative you can always make like Rick and Morty and Jump to another one, as a result, you can vote with your feet and support the stories you like while not supporting the stories you don't. you don't get that ability when a single centralized entity controls everything.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

In what way do you think we've failed?

Well, broadly speaking, the Right doesn't do cancel culture or, for the longest time, didn't really do boycotts be it of films or products. Since the Left does do such things we, by our various inactions, created an environment were it was profitable to carry water for the Left but costly to do the reverse.

We ignored the long march through the institutions pretending that as long as we voted against it at the ballot box then everything would be okay.

Now part of that is slow boiling water effect, some of that is humans by their tend not to want to go against the pack and stand out. But the short of it is Hollywood is burning piles of money throwing out woke cringfests because, up to a point, we the audience were more often than not willing to buy it.

Well, the first hurdle (beyond, you know, being able to make something comparable to Star Wars in quality) is that the film industry is very different from how it was in the late seventies. It's much more insular, and aggressive towards any "outsider" trying to make a movie. So to start with, unless you've got connections in Hollywood (which would necessitate holding regressive leftist ideological views) your work is going to be barred from being shown in most theaters, no matter how good it is. Sadly, there are similar issues in the animation and comic book industry, so the only path forward is to go indie and give up on trying to reach the mass market; which, admittedly, more and more people are doing. Unfortunately, many then run into the second hurdle; which is the fact that the mainstream industries tend to do everything in their power to try and destroy anyone in the indie scene who gets too successful, particularly those that doesn't share their ideology, and they have many ways of doing so. Stuff like attacking your character in the media, squeezing you out of whatever venues you distribute your work through, and getting the government involved.

That doesn't really answer my question through. I'm fully aware of the difficulty and deliberate singular if not feudal nature of our Elites. What I'm asking is what is your solution for combating this. Your asking for these IPs claiming if you just had them you could compete in the free market with the big boys and I, in a fairly reasonable request, just want to know how you are going to compete.

So you believe that copyright shouldn't have an expiration date then?

Broadly speaking, yes. I view copyright as a positive, good force on society and on general principal I don't like the idea of property having a set timelimit. If something is mine, and I think an idea is the most intimate thing that can belong to a man, then I should be able to pass it down to my descendants the same as I could any possession.

 

[Terthna]

Well, broadly speaking, the Right doesn't do cancel culture or, for the longest time, didn't really do boycotts be it of films or products. Since the Left does do such things we, by our various inactions, created an environment were it was profitable to carry water for the Left but costly to do the reverse.

We ignored the long march through the institutions pretending that as long as we voted against it at the ballot box then everything would be okay.

Now part of that is slow boiling water effect, some of that is humans by their tend not to want to go against the pack and stand out. But the short of it is Hollywood is burning piles of money throwing out woke cringfests because, up to a point, we the audience were more often than not willing to buy it.

Fair enough; I've had more than my own share of complaints about the general public's willful ignorance, and unwillingness to actually do anything about the problems that plague them. But let's not pretend that there wasn't some trickery and deceit involved in keeping the majority of people docile and ignorant.

That doesn't really answer my question through. I'm fully aware of the difficulty and deliberate singular if not feudal nature of our Elites. What I'm asking is what is your solution for combating this. Your asking for these IPs claiming if you just had them you could compete in the free market with the big boys and I, in a fairly reasonable request, just want to know how you are going to compete.

By creating a superior product; or at the very least, serve a niche that the larger corporations ignore. There are many, many examples of fan projects that have done exactly that, but weren't able to be monetized for obvious reasons (and even then, many have been shut down anyways well into development by litigious corporations). That is of course assuming all the other issues with the market, the ones that big corporations put in place to block new competitors from actually being able to compete, are fixed as well.

Broadly speaking, yes. I view copyright as a positive, good force on society and on general principal I don't like the idea of property having a set timelimit. If something is mine, and I think an idea is the most intimate thing that can belong to a man, then I should be able to pass it down to my descendants the same as I could any possession.

Whereas I see it as a government subsidy that, like all subsidies eventually are, has been perverted by big business into something that betrays its original intention. Ideas were never meant to be considered property in perpetuity; and in any event, more often than not they'll end up in the hands of large corporations, not your descendants. The copyright system must be abolished, if we're to have anything even vaguely resembling a free market; or at the very least, the amount of time you can have something copyrighted needs to be reduced to something far more reasonable, like its original 14 year limit.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Broadly speaking, yes. I view copyright as a positive, good force on society and on general principal I don't like the idea of property having a set timelimit. If something is mine, and I think an idea is the most intimate thing that can belong to a man, then I should be able to pass it down to my descendants the same as I could any possession.

I don't trust my descendants on principle. Successful fathers always seem to make children and grandchildren that are disappointments. They know not what they have and will sell their birthrights for pots of stew.

 

[Agent23]

Well, broadly speaking, the Right doesn't do cancel culture or, for the longest time, didn't really do boycotts be it of films or products. Since the Left does do such things we, by our various inactions, created an environment were it was profitable to carry water for the Left but costly to do the reverse.

We ignored the long march through the institutions pretending that as long as we voted against it at the ballot box then everything would be okay.

Now part of that is slow boiling water effect, some of that is humans by their tend not to want to go against the pack and stand out. But the short of it is Hollywood is burning piles of money throwing out woke cringfests because, up to a point, we the audience were more often than not willing to buy it.


That doesn't really answer my question through. I'm fully aware of the difficulty and deliberate singular if not feudal nature of our Elites. What I'm asking is what is your solution for combating this. Your asking for these IPs claiming if you just had them you could compete in the free market with the big boys and I, in a fairly reasonable request, just want to know how you are going to compete.


Broadly speaking, yes. I view copyright as a positive, good force on society and on general principal I don't like the idea of property having a set timelimit. If something is mine, and I think an idea is the most intimate thing that can belong to a man, then I should be able to pass it down to my descendants the same as I could any possession.

So, have you paid tour licensing fee to the descendants of invented fire and the wheel lately?

I personally think that copyright having a set time limit is a good thing, because then companies like Disney will not be able to milk Micky and Batman until the End Times and will be forced to make new stuff.

Same goes for drugs, the patents expiring force more innovation.

Patent law exists for a very good reason, you disclose what you are doing, so that everyone know it is safe for consumption, and you get protections with a set time limit.

After?

You either make enough to retire or you go to work on the next project.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

By creating a superior product; or at the very least, serve a niche that the larger corporations ignore. There are many, many examples of fan projects that have done exactly that, but weren't able to be monetized for obvious reasons (and even then, many have been shut down anyways well into development by litigious corporations). That is of course assuming all the other issues with the market, the ones that big corporations put in place to block new competitors from actually being able to compete, are fixed as well.

A "superior product", itself a very subjective term, doesn't answer how you will fund its development, find a platform or attract eyes to your product so it doesn't languish in nonexistence or obscurity. After all if the goal is to compete against Amazon's interpretation of LOTR it solves nothing if you have an unseen youtube video while their product is shown in every household.

Further I can't help but see the "Utopian parallels" in your position that I see in Marxism. Both make the perfect the enemy of the good fixating on problems, real or imagined, in the system and whose solution consists of tearing down a functional system for a gauzy promise of a perfect promised land at some further, later point after we destroyed everything. Nothing good can come from this line of thinking.

Whereas I see it as a government subsidy

I'm sorry, that's like saying enforcing law is a subsidy. There's no fundamental difference between the Governments preventing guys from busting down my door and stealing my TV and preventing them from stealing my ideas. Only in a society where private property is protected can we flourish.

Ideas were never meant to be considered property in perpetuity; and in any event, more often than not they'll end up in the hands of large corporations, not your descendants.

If you wish to argue why "ideas" should not be considered property you are free to do so but I do not share that belief and do not agree with it. So any argument which rests on that idea as a crux is unlikely to be convincing to me.

I also don't see why ideas ending up with "large corporations" is a bad thing. Granted I would prefer if my descendants simply liscense the idea to them rather than sell them outright but at least they were compensated by a mututally agreed amount as opposed to it simply being stolen from them due to a time limit.

The copyright system must be abolished, if we're to have anything even vaguely resembling a free market;

Other way around. Its only through a copyright system that we can have a modern, free market. What you are proposing would lead to a stagnation of creativity as their is no value in invention. Afterall why would you create the next big medical breakthrough or a phaser rifle if you couldn't monetize it? If people could just steal it after you've invested all the time and resources doing the heavy lifting?

I don't trust my descendants on principle. Successful fathers always seem to make children and grandchildren that are disappointments. They know not what they have and will sell their birthrights for pots of stew.

If that is the case then you have my sympathy. We are but a chain progressing from past to present to future. To say that your chain is broken is to claim that you have effectively ceased to exist. You have no future at least on this Earth, nothing to work towards or for.

So, have you paid tour licensing fee to the descendants of invented fire and the wheel lately?

I don't think that would be applicable in my case since I don't employ fire or the wheel in a commercial enterprise. That for the wheel I would think auto manufacturers would pay that licensing fee and in turn I would pay it through a raised price on the final product.

Then there is the issue that things like fire and the wheel were likely independently created by multiple parties over the history of Man muddling right ownership.

I personally think that copyright having a set time limit is a good thing, because then companies like Disney will not be able to milk Micky and Batman until the End Times and will be forced to make new stuff.

I can respect that position and anything that can shake off the creative sterility mankind seems to be slumping in would be a boon.

 

[Agent23]

A "superior product", itself a very subjective term, doesn't answer how you will fund its development, find a platform or attract eyes to your product so it doesn't languish in nonexistence or obscurity.

Oh, geez, if only we had some form of institution that lends money on interest to people who need it.
Or maybe some way for people to invest in your company directly

Or, you can, you know, reinvest the money from the first venture.

After all if the goal is to compete against Amazon's interpretation of LOTR it solves nothing if you have an unseen youtube video while their product is shown in every household.

Available in every household - maybe.
Shown everywhere?
Nope, not everyone is a fantasy nerd.
And of those who are, many won't care because it would not be officially endorsed.
And that stops no one from making a competing movie.

Like how we have fons of intereptstions of fairy tales, for example.

Further I can't help but see the "Utopian parallels" in your position that I see in Marxism. Both make the perfect the enemy of the good fixating on problems, real or imagined, in the system and whose solution consists of tearing down a functional system for a gauzy promise of a perfect promised land at some further, later point after we destroyed everything. Nothing good can come from this line of thinking.

Utopinan positions...

So the entire patent system that has existed for centuries now is utopian, got ya...

I'm sorry, that's like saying enforcing law is a subsidy. There's no fundamental difference between the Governments preventing guys from busting down my door and stealing my TV and preventing them from stealing my ideas. Only in a society where private property is protected can we flourish.

Equating ideas to physical materials is silly.

If you wish to argue why "ideas" should not be considered property you are free to do so but I do not share that belief and do not agree with it. So any argument which rests on that idea as a crux is unlikely to be convincing to me.

They are, for as long as a patent on them holds.

I also don't see why ideas ending up with "large corporations" is a bad thing.

I guess you are enjoying what Disney, WB and th elike are doing to Wars, Trek, BSG, 40k, LotR, and all of the capeshit comics.

Granted I would prefer if my descendants simply liscense the idea to them rather than sell them outright but at least they were compensated by a mututally agreed amount as opposed to it simply being stolen from them due to a time limit.

Unlike a physicap good, it is harder to prove ownership of an ide, or secure it, sorry, this is reality.

You have some idea, you get a claim to it by patenting.

You have a set amount of time to sell it.

Other way around. Its only through a copyright system that we can have a modern, free market.

Yes, and both copyright and patents expire.

What you are proposing would lead to a stagnation of creativity as their is no value in invention.

Did you read what I wrote about the current, working system?

If anything, patents with a set duration make you invent more stuff.
See drug companies.

Afterall why would you create the next big medical breakthrough or a phaser rifle if you couldn't monetize it? If people could just steal it after you've invested all the time and resources doing the heavy lifting?

If that is the case then you have my sympathy. We are but a chain progressing from past to present to future. To say that your chain is broken is to claim that you have effectively ceased to exist. You have no future at least on this Earth, nothing to work towards or for.


I don't think that would be applicable in my case since I don't employ fire or the wheel in a commercial enterprise. That for the wheel I would think auto manufacturers would pay that licensing fee and in turn I would pay it through a raised price on the final product.

Then there is the issue that things like fire and the wheel were likely independently created by multiple parties over the history of Man muddling right ownership.


I can respect that position and anything that can shake off the creative sterility mankind seems to be slumping in would be a boon.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Oh, geez, if only we had some form of institution that lends money on interest to people who need it.
Or maybe some way for people to invest in your company directly

Or, you can, you know, reinvest the money from the first venture.

And I would encourage all of that yet. I think all of that would be far more practical than abolishing the copyright system.

So the entire patent system that has existed for centuries now is utopian, got ya...

Oh no, far from it. Much like the Free Market is hardly Utopian. I'll admit part of the confusion may because I use Utopian in a pejorative sense.

At its simplest, I am alleging that Marxism uses the vague and wishy-washy promise of a Utopian future to justify dismantling an imperfect system. The obvious implication is that all systems are, by their very nature, imperfect and thus all you have traded is a functional system for chaos and likely, ultimately, a worse system.

Equating ideas to physical materials is silly.

They are [property], for as long as a patent on them holds.

Brackets added by myself for clarity.

So do you not consider one's property a physical material or do you argue that you are silly?

I guess you are enjoying what Disney, WB and th elike are doing to Wars, Trek, BSG, 40k, LotR, and all of the capeshit comics.

Not at all but merely because I don't like how one person utilized an IP does not mean the concept itself should be abolished.

Rather that by giving our money to products that support our values, and boycotting ones that don't, we can affect far more effective change either in changing the directory on "Wars, Trek, BSG, 40k, LotR and all the capeshit" or consign them to the trashbin of history replaced with new IPs which reflect our values.

Unlike a physicap good, it is harder to prove ownership of an ide, or secure it, sorry, this is reality.

I am unsure of your argument here on many levels. On one level you claim it is harder to prove than a physical good but then immediately mention getting a patent the latter and the infringement thereof is a fairly easy way to demonstrate theft of your idea.

Secondly your argument appears to be that if an idea is more difficult to secure it therefore should not be given the same degree of protection?

It also seems to muddily waiver from theoretical concept to an argument of more utilitarian in nature.

Yes, and both copyright and patents expire.

Which I think is a net loss for humanity.

Did you read what I wrote about the current, working system?

And did you read that I was responding "The copyright system must be abolished"?

If anything, patents with a set duration make you invent more stuff.
See drug companies.

Its one thing to argue that for Mickey Mouse and Batman. Those are creative concepts. Drug companies on the other hand are producing treatments to ailments which can take years if not decades of testing and approval before they can be administered. Far from encouraging innovation it would just as likely encourage relatively cheaper alternatives like pain pills or similar avenues that require little R&D and which will always have a market.

Oh by all means, I am all ears to hear your arguments on the matter.

I am unsure of what you are attempting to say since you appear to have incorrectly quoted two different replies to two different individuals. Could you elaborate?

Again I am a little unclear as to the meaning of your point or what it is precisely directed at. Could you please elaborate?

Edit:

Available in every household - maybe.
Shown everywhere?
Nope, not everyone is a fantasy nerd.
And of those who are, many won't care because it would not be officially endorsed.
And that stops no one from making a competing movie.

Quick query since I think I initially misread this. Are you saying the fan project wouldn't be accepted because it wasn't officially endorsed or are arguing the Amazon won't get Simon to slap an official sticker on their product?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

that is the case then you have my sympathy. We are but a chain progressing from past to present to future. To say that your chain is broken is to claim that you have effectively ceased to exist. You have no future at least on this Earth, nothing to work towards or for.

Ah ha so THAT is where you and I fundamentally differ. Well I don't see it as dismal as you seem. It's just a simple fact of life that weak fathers create strong children and strong fathers create weak children. Parents don't want their kids to have to suffer what they have suffered through and children will often spite their own parents or their grandparents for good or for ill to have a mark of their own, I believe that is why we are seeing so many kids labeling their family members as Problematic Whether they admit it or not. They want an excuse to dissociate themselves so they can have their own Mark just as Alexander lashed out against his own father and asked "what lands will be left for ME to conquer?"

Bloodlines fade out of relivince, intermingle and just die out entirely. It's not good or bad just is, but as long as their are people wanting to share the stuff you have created, then a piece of you always exist even if no one remembers your name, but this cannot happen so long as these stores are left to be gobbled up, milked for all their worth and then "consigned to the trashbin of history." As you put it.

You seem to be indicating that "what happens to my stories doesn't matter as much so long as my bloodline continues and remain prosperous."

Where I take the opposite perspective "whatever happens to my bloodline happens, so long as what I've created remains."

Unfortunately I don't our philosophies can't co-exist as they are at fundamental odds with each other in the purpose of property and law.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Ah ha so THAT is where you and I fundamentally differ.

I'm not sure if that's the only difference but yes, it does seem to be a major influence on why you seem to view the legacy of IP's as so important while I view them as a means to an end. Ultimately disposable.

I would disagree however that my view is "what happens to my stories doesn't matter as much so long as my bloodline continues and remain prosperous" but rather if I played my part to continue the great stream of life raising and passing my values down to the next generation then I am happy and lived life to its fullest even if my line ends with that generation. That I am content to know in the hour of need I did the right thing and can greet whatever awaits us beyond death with my head held high.

That indeed I view the possibility of my lineage ending as a positive since it means negative traits and values are likely to be culled and that, over the great expanse of time, the stream of life while it may be momentarily polluted will eventually cleanse and repair itself. The trashbin of history is not just for old IP's after all. And that is only through this Darwinian cycle that good ideas can come to the fore and be maintained.

The immortality I seek is more about flinging a light into the darkness with the next generation and who in turn will influence the one after that either directly through progeny or through the laws and institutions they found. To play my small part in that great chain doing my small part to help shape the world that will come is the only truly eternal endeavor. Which is likely why the Left, who has fewer children compared to the right, have latched so strongly to public schools effectively wanting to become surrogate parents for the entire country's children.

So to that end I don't see the value of my works still being read if the people in question can't understand the values expressed within and only see it as something to mine for characters and plot ideas.

Unfortunately I don't our philosophies can't co-exist as they are at fundamental odds with each other in the purpose of property and law.

They do appear to be incompatible likely evolving from separate cultures. As with all things only the test of time will see which one will prevail.

 

[Agent23]

*SNIP*

A physical object can be tracked, can have unique characteristics, and if it is in your possession there are numerous physical impediments to taking it away.
There are various impediments to moving it around.
A car for example, has a license plate, a deed/title of ownership, a VIN and a chassis number.
You will not be able to get it through borders easily and you will know immediately if you have lost the car.

Ideas can occur to multiple people and different times, and if, for example one person is using a process to produce nitrogen fertilizers it might be very hard to ascertain if another person or company is not using the same process illegally, a different variation of it thet is different enough not to be subject to patent protection, or if it inventes it first but failed to disclose or was dealing with a different patent system.

Furthermore, there is no physical loss with ideas, you still have it, you can still use it, and or is child's play for someone to transmit it.

This is of course related to technology, characters are more readily identifiable, but I still don't see why I have pay a few random Greeks for the right to read the Illiad or random Frenchies - to read Les Miserables.
Or to some distant cousin of Kipling's - to read his esteemed distant's poetry.

If anything those things becoming common and freely available can only improve their circulation later on and preserve them longer while giving more people access to them and inspiring new ideas.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

A physical object can be tracked, can have unique characteristics, and if it is in your possession there are numerous physical impediments to taking it away.
There are various impediments to moving it around.
A car for example, has a license plate, a deed/title of ownership, a VIN and a chassis number.
You will not be able to get it through borders easily and you will know immediately if you have lost the car.

Ideas can occur to multiple people and different times, and if, for example one person is using a process to produce nitrogen fertilizers it might be very hard to ascertain if another person or company is not using the same process illegally, a different variation of it thet is different enough not to be subject to patent protection, or if it inventes it first but failed to disclose or was dealing with a different patent system.

Furthermore, there is no physical loss with ideas, you still have it, you can still use it, and or is child's play for someone to transmit it.

This is of course related to technology, characters are more readily identifiable, but I still don't see why I have pay a few random Greeks for the right to read the Illiad or random Frenchies - to read Les Miserables.
Or to some distant cousin of Kipling's - to read his esteemed distant's poetry.

If anything those things becoming common and freely available can only improve their circulation later on and preserve them longer while giving more people access to them and inspiring new ideas.

There were multiple points raised in the post you are quoting. Can I assume you have conceded all but the one issue you are responding too?

A physical object can be tracked, can have unique characteristics, and if it is in your possession there are numerous physical impediments to taking it away.

A patent would also have unique characteristics and can be used to track the physical representation of the idea. Further I'm not sure arguing ideas have less impediments to theft is a strong argument for their to be less protection for them.

Ideas can occur to multiple people and different times, and if, for example one person is using a process to produce nitrogen fertilizers it might be very hard to ascertain if another person or company is not using the same process illegally, a different variation of it thet is different enough not to be subject to patent protection, or if it inventes it first but failed to disclose or was dealing with a different patent system.

And as Razorfist himself says, since you are familiar with him and cited him earlier, the entire point of a patent or copyright is that you have to actualize on the idea. To have an idea is not the same thing as having a patent for an idea. And thus the patent system creates a, relatively, straightforward chronology that can be referenced.

Nor is it being "hard to ascertain" if a patent is being infringed as a reason to deny said patents protection.

Furthermore, there is no physical loss with ideas, you still have it, you can still use it, and or is child's play for someone to transmit it.

That's absolutely false. To use your example of drug companies there would be a notable physical loss in terms of time and resources if, after inventing their drug, their competitors could simply swipe it and sell it for themselves.

That this is more a reason to protect them rather than not as you alleged.

This is of course related to technology, characters are more readily identifiable, but I still don't see why I have pay a few random Greeks for the right to read the Illiad or random Frenchies - to read Les Miserables.
Or to some distant cousin of Kipling's - to read his esteemed distant's poetry.

Well you shouldn't because that's never been required. To use a modern example, i don't have to pay DC every time I watch a Batman movie. That if I buy a book or a movie that utilizes their intellectual property I have bought a licensee from the seller for private viewing.

Within this context you'd only have to pay a few random Greeks if you decided to produce a movie based around the Illiad and its characters which is par for the course for using someone else intellectual property. The only real thing under discussion is duration.

If anything those things becoming common and freely available can only improve their circulation later on and preserve them longer while giving more people access to them and inspiring new ideas.

Well I'm far from convinced copyright is the true hindrance for access. If anything things in public domain tend to just fade into obscurity outside of being used to flaunt other people's copyrights for low-budget fodder.

 

[Agent23]

There were multiple points raised in the post you are quoting. Can I assume you have conceded all but the one issue you are responding too?


A patent would also have unique characteristics and can be used to track the physical representation of the idea. Further I'm not sure arguing ideas have less impediments to theft is a strong argument for their to be less protection for them.


And as Razorfist himself says, since you are familiar with him and cited him earlier, the entire point of a patent or copyright is that you have to actualize on the idea. To have an idea is not the same thing as having a patent for an idea. And thus the patent system creates a, relatively, straightforward chronology that can be referenced.

Nor is it being "hard to ascertain" if a patent is being infringed as a reason to deny said patents protection.


That's absolutely false. To use your example of drug companies there would be a notable physical loss in terms of time and resources if, after inventing their drug, their competitors could simply swipe it and sell it for themselves.

That this is more a reason to protect them rather than not as you alleged.


Well you shouldn't because that's never been required. To use a modern example, i don't have to pay DC every time I watch a Batman movie. That if I buy a book or a movie that utilizes their intellectual property I have bought a licensee from the seller for private viewing.

Within this context you'd only have to pay a few random Greeks if you decided to produce a movie based around the Illiad and its characters which is par for the course for using someone else intellectual property. The only real thing under discussion is duration.


Well I'm far from convinced copyright is the true hindrance for access. If anything things in public domain tend to just fade into obscurity outside of being used to flaunt other people's copyrights for low-budget fodder.

You do realize that legal contracts can not be drafter "in perpetuity" right?

Or how frigging hard it will be to track who gets what, and that at some point you will be giving money to people less related to the originator than Elizabeth Warren is related to Amerindians.


And there is the derivative approach, where one piece of tech becomes more expensive when it is applied to another, like using fire to make pottery.


Ultimately your solution of perpetual copyrights is a pipe dream, a bigger utopia than what you accuse me of proposing.

The current copyright and patent laws work just fine, they have helped produce more innovation and they have been around for what is now centuries with some stupid tweaks.

A number of cultures don't really care that much about copyright, like Japan and other Asians, and they haven't had that much of a problem producing innovations.

Now, I am not arguing against copyright/patent law here, but in general having perpetual copyright is nonsense, and impossible to enforce and inflationary in the long term.

Resources can be used for better things, not giving the great-great-great-grandcousin of
HPL or Tolkien free money for something they never had a role in producing.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

as both extremes lead to the same level of stagnation, i think of IP laws as having a nozzle-like effect on ideas.
we temporally restrain who can benefit from an idea so that an individual has incentive to create new things, and then open it up to the public so that others can build on their foundation w/o having a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
this may or may be the "best" way of doing things, but it may be the "least sucky" means.

 

[Agent23]

as both extremes lead to the same level of stagnation, i think of IP laws as having a nozzle-like effect on ideas.
we temporally restrain who can benefit from an idea so that an individual has incentive to create new things, and then open it up to the public so that others can build on their foundation w/o having a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
this may or may be the "best" way of doing things, but it may be the "least sucky" means.

You should take a look at the software industry.

Years ago, Sum microsystems opensourced a lot of stuff, Java, their Solaris OS, and they owned MySQL which was already opensource, kidna.

Oracle decided to be cute and we got lots of forks and a nice fire was lit under stuff like Java and JDK development, Solaris forks and Solaris-derived stuff like zfs and pure linux successors like btrfs, and the original developer of MySQL forking the code and starting a new company called MariaDB, which in turn forced Oracle to innovate more.
The original theory was that Oracle wanted to stifle competition from MySQL by acquiring Sun and then running MySQL into the ground or making using it more restrictive.

IBM buys Red Hat, who were assholes to begin with, but nvm.


They decide to discontinue CentOS support/fuck over the users by turning it into a distro based on the unstable Fedora, because they want to sell more support for RHEL.

Result, you get Alma linux, Rocky linux and a lot of other distros compatible with RHEL.


Now, Red Hat does not own linux or the userland parts of it that make a RHEL compatible distro, RHEL compatible, like RPM packages, higher level package managers and the like.

If anything, they have been actively trying to take over more aspects of linux development and turn Linux into MacOS, but all of the code is FOSS.

Similarly, Elasticsearch tried to pull some licensing shit with its product and we got it forked into Opensearch, which is seeing rapid growth and improvement.


Hashicorp pulled the same shit with terraform, and we got opentf/opentofu.

So, yeah, copyright and IP protection are necessary, but:
When you are dealing with stuff like code and ideas not every missing license is a lost sale, as RGE likes to point out.
Overly stringent copyright laws can lead to patent trolling and stifled innovation.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Copyright/IP laws used to make sense, the idea is protecting the lil guy from giants.
Except like most things it got subverted and now it's used to crush the lil guy BY the giants.

 

[Agent23]

Copyright/IP laws used to make sense, the idea is protecting the lil guy from giants.
Except like most things it got subverted and now it's used to crush the lil guy BY the giants.

I am pro copyrights and IP protection, but I am not ok with patent trolling and perpetual copyright.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I am pro copyrights and IP protection, but I am not ok with patent trolling and perpetual copyright.

It always comes down to 'something is perfectly reasonable until it's exploited', doesn't it?
X_X Everyone went to shit the moment people realized you could simply pay off the people who are meant to be impartial in judgement over laws...

 

[Agent23]

It always comes down to 'something is perfectly reasonable until it's exploited', doesn't it?
X_X Everyone went to shit the moment people realized you could simply pay off the people who are meant to be impartial in judgement over laws...

More like when the pointless bureaucrats and lawyers and other pointless bloat and rent seekers get their teeth into it.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Or how frigging hard it will be to track who gets what, and that at some point you will be giving money to people less related to the originator than Elizabeth Warren is related to Amerindians

That's an argument of practicality, something I haven't denied and indeed brought up first in response to you.

But that doesn't address the philosophical issue of if ideas are property or not. Which itself is a question is it stealing to keep something out of the Public Domain or if the Public Domain itself in theft.

The current copyright and patent laws work just fine, they have helped produce more innovation and they have been around for what is now centuries with some stupid tweaks

I'm not sure why you feel that is somehow disagreeing or contradicting my position. I am for copy right law.

Ultimately your solution of perpetual copyrights is a pipe dream, a bigger utopia than what you accuse me of proposing.

You first brought up paying royalties for fire, not I. I am not intellectually opposed to the idea on principal but that is far removed from arguing that it is a practical solution.

Now, I am not arguing against copyright/patent law here

That is very much unclear since you injected yourself and echoed arguments calling for it abolishment.

Even in this post you make mention of Asian countries apparently taking copyright less serious yet still innovating making it seem like you are talking out of both sides of the issue.

Resources can be used for better things, not giving the great-great-great-grandcousin of
HPL or Tolkien free money for something they never had a role in producing.

Except the system you argue for does in fact pay individuals who have no role in producing the actual unless you are arguing Simon was involved in his grandad's work.

The issue is one of duration and of which your sole argument appears to be one of practicality which isn't applicable to the IP's under discussion. Ie there isn't any doubt Tolkien wrote the LOTR or even dealing with millennia old descendents.