Comment

Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch

This is a horrible idea. Why would an author dedicate years of their life to a book only to make no money off of it. Why would I spend time and money prototyping a new invention only to not see a dime from it as a big company steals my idea.

You could literally write the next Lord of the Rings and another company could print and sell the book, sell merch, and make a movie about it and you’d see 0 money. But no one would make movies any more because what’s the point?

People think about getting an the stuff from companies for free and forget that big companies would benefit most with no protection to the little guy.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You’re right. As we all know people only started to create art after IP laws where established.

Nobody ever made something original just for the joy of it. It’s only fair that a single company has the exclusive rights on a pants-wearing mouse that looks a certain way for 95 years.

source
- Lightor@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This is a bad faith argument.
  
  Forms of IP have existed for a long time. And back in your days you didn’t have one company that could have global reach in second.
  
  You still ignore the fact that if I spend 5 years of my life writing a book, it could be taken away with no money to me. So people can no longer dedicate their lives to creating when they have bills to pay.
  
  source
  - Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Have you considered that the problem of not being able to create art for recreational purposes without thinking about its monetary value is the actual issue here?
    
    source
    Lightor@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes, I have.
    
    But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that’s what’s being proposed.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The rich want to do it because of AI. That’s it.

They can already take whatever you create wihout giving you a dime. What are you gonna do, sue a multi-billion dollar company with a fleet of attorneys on standby? With what money?

They would certainly just settle and give you a pittance just about large enough to cover your attorney fees.

Do you know why companies usually don’t do this? Because they have sufficiently many people hired who do nothing but create stories for the company full time. They do not need your ideas.

Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books.

source
- Lightor@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Small companies have defend themselves from Apple. People make money from their inventions and writings. There are tons of examples.
  
  They also don’t want it just because of AI, this would enable them to steal and mass produce any IP anyone makes. This includes physical inventions.
  
  Also copyright didn’t exist for a long time and neither did the Internet or global trade. Times change. We went millennia without many things, it doesn’t automatically make them wrong or bad. What a silly basis.
  
  source
  - yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?
    
    Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.
    
    There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.
    
    I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it. What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.
    
    Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.
    
    IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs. Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. The vast, vast, VAST majority of artists make hardly any money already. Just check Bandcamp or itch.io and see how many millions of artists there are who will never ever see success. They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?
    
    source
    Lightor@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?
    
    Ok, and not every time a person wins there’s a headline either, this is a moot point.
    
    Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.
    
    So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn’t off base. You don’t always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.
    
    There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.
    
    Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn’t automatically make X a bad thing. I’ve not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn’t.
    
    What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.
    
    They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn’t have an interconnected global economy, you didn’t have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn’t set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.
    
    Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.
    
    Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.
    
    IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.
    
    Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.
    
    You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there’s no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol
    
    Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can’t guarantee it won’t just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.
    
    They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?
    
    They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you’re just looking at it as a “less money needs less protection” lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.
    
    IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn’t make them bad. Just because small creators don’t make a lot of money doesn’t mean they shouldn’t own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it’s extremely shortsighted.
    
    source