Removing copyright entirely is a bridge too far.
Just roll it back to a reasonable time limit (I dunno, 7 years?), and categorically reject all further lobbying attempts from Disney and the like.
Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m cool with it. I think we should require almost everything to be public domain. But I think those personally contributing to the public domain should be recognized, and no one should be allowed to get rich off of it.
AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev 1 week ago
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is called being a “reactionary.” You don’t want to drastically change the system in ways that’ll make things better for all. You just want to return to a previous status quo you enjoyed.
obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
I’d like to get back to ‘for limited time’. Patents 10 years, no extensions. Copyright, 10 years, no extensions. Trademarks indefinite as long as the owner still has a meaningful business still operating and using the trademark ( this one is tricky to define well).
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s still a misguided policy aimed at furthering the lie of individualism. Which why we have so many ridiculous true stories of parallel invention, and scientists racing to the patent office to claim full credit.
These people are building on the works of all those who came before. All should benefit from the results. And all should enjoy a basic standard of living, instead of this cut throat first past this finish line system, where all who fall behind will suffer.
obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
I view the patent process as furthering the ability of others to benefit from the results: without patents, the only way to keep clones of your product from immediately appearing on the market is obfuscation and trade secrets. Patents grant a limited monopoly, but at the price of full disclosure. That full disclosure serves a useful social benefit as others can learn and innovate on what was done before. The limited monopoly encourages innovation because it helps people get exclusive rights to sell their work.
There’s a lot of bad patent behavior with patent trolls, etc. The duration of the patents should be relatively short and not extensible. But I think the disclosure aspect of the patent process does further overall innovation.
nik9000@programming.dev 1 week ago
A government stipend to make public art or open source software or literature or whatever sounds pretty great. It’s hard to see how we get there from here. But it’d be great.
France has something like it for artists I think.
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A great starting point is guaranteeing a basic standard of living for all. No exceptions.
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well… Until you get someone like Trump in charge and he decides that the stipend only goes to those that praise him and strips the stipend from anyone critical of him or his ideology.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You’re cool with it until you realize that they only want to do this to personally gain from it. And guaranteed will protect their own IP, and the IP of every large corporation.
It’s just that you yourself and small businesses will no longer have the benefit of intellectual property. Megacorps can steal whatever they want with impunity since they are the only true holders of intellectual property.
tiddy@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Kinda feel like they said something like
“I think everyone should have food”
And you responded with
“you want a Walmart on every block in the world?? do you even know the environmental impact that will have? Poor people are really to blame for their starvation because they’re not voting with their wallets enough”
How an asshole can mess something up is entirely independent of how a proper implementation might not mess up
surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You really need to read something that isn’t capitalist propaganda.