Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’.
Lightor@lemmy.world 4 days agoSo art is pointless because people are dying? This is silly. We can destroy the creative nature of our society to save some people, sure. Ignoring the ripple effect that has and lives it would impact, how far do you take that? Is losing the right to freedom of speech ok if it saves lives? This would have massive down stream effects and actuall results in more harm.
Did you ever consider the ability to make and sell these, then transport? Did you consider the fact that as new deseases emerge that there will be no incentive for a company to invest in finding a cure or vaccine? No, because people just want to virtue signal.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
No. Before the industrial revolution participating in art wasn’t something you did to make money, it was a prerequisite to a full human existence. Art isn’t a job art is humanity. Art isn’t pointless, art is the point. I’m not arguing against art. I’m arguing against “creator” existing as a social function or identity. Look into the concept of commodification. You’ll learn a lot
I’m saying that people shouldn’t “be able to live” off of art the same way they shouldn’t “be able to live” off breathing and further.
I am ignoring the ripple effects on people’s lives because those effects only hit them as far as they have allowed themselves to participate in the selling off of their humanity.
And no. It doesn’t extend to free speech because free speech isn’t an argument solely used to prop up a system that shouldn’t have ever existed at all.
Art is not pointless, but it shouldn’t be something you buy or sell. Many things we buy or sell today are the same. Art is not unique.
But the argument that an artist in the Netherlands keeping their job because otherwise they’ll starve is a justification for a child in Sierra Leone dying of tuberculosis when the person paying for the art has the ability to give the artist food and the child medicine is evil. And make no mistake, that person is you.
IP abolition is one single part of a much larger reform we need, and anyone who is arguing against it is missing the forest for the trees. That is my argument.
Wanting artists to be able to be paid for their work obfuscates the much larger, actually important issue that they’ll starve in our society without their art. That is evil.
Lightor@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Art is something you invest time and money and resources into. Breathing is not. This doesn’t make any sense. I can breathe while working a 9-5.
Really? Well that is extremely close minded. Without IP big pharma won’t be interested in investing millions into a new vaccine, so I guess everyone who dies from the lack of that vaccine is their fault, because they sold their sole. Or you spent your life on your masterpiece of a book and want to make money off your life’s work, someone you’ve sold you soul because you want money to live.
Have you never seen politicians? Have you ever read a history book? Words and hate speech, covered by freedom of speech, has lead to many deaths. But I guess they don’t matter somehow.
But I’m sure the artist wants a house to live in. Who is making that house? They want to eat. How are they getting that food. You seem to live in a fantasy land where everyone has unlimited time and money to just create and be happy with creating, no bills, no real world to worry about.
I agree we need reform. But I would say anyone arguing that we don’t need IP is naive. They benefit from it every day while saying it should be destroyed. Which now that I think of it sounds like every republican. Not calling you one, just funny how that works out. No surprise that people with money are the ones wanting it gone. Ever think why the rich want this? Is it because you think they’re trying to be good people? Or maybe, just maybe, they realize how they will get even more money and power while selling a fantasy that people eat up. This is just like how people eat up the idea of tariffs without even understanding what they are. That’s you.
Yes, they shouldn’t have to do art to survive. But your solution would just kill art all together. Because a system is broken is not a reason to remove it entirely, it’s a reason to fix it. You just seem to have this pipe dream of a world where everyone can just do art whenever for free and no one ever has to worry about money. That sounds great, but it’s a fantasy. I live in reality, please join me.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
Prove it cunt. Show me a single fucking time in all of human history where people didn’t try to cure disease because they couldn’t make money. This is exactly what I’m talking about. You buy dumb shit like this hook line and sinker. You’re an idiot who thinks they’re smart and it’s killing children. There is absolutely zero evidence proving anything about IP is responsible to any disease cure. There are no actual studies proving it because it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition to say altruism doesn’t exist. But you’re so fucking braindead at this point you actually believe it
No. IP does not improve the healthcare system in any way. Spreading these lies is why I called you evil. Because they’re the reason children are dying. You’re correct I am also evil. Our body counts are identical. I just have the human decency to feel shame about it.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
And there it is! Finally! You entered a discussion of theory: a discussion on what the ideal is. A discussion where no one is talking anything about the mechanics of getting there and you decided to completely ignore that and start talking about “compromises” and “reality” as though it made you smart to completely miss the discussion actually taking place.
No, I will not “join you in reality” (i.e. Talk about policy) because we are not discussing policy, we are discussing theory. That is what was posted, that is what everyone around you is talking about.
The question posed is “what should be?” You don’t get to pretend that’s a discussion of what is and walk away like you made a point.
Also, no shit the ancient Greeks paid for art. I wasn’t making a claim about the Greeks. I said before the industrial revolution as in “just before the industrial revolution” and no, even then it wasn’t perfect. But both that and the Greek system was a completely different beast to what we have today and you know it!
Stop being a smug asshole and actually engage with the discussion or fuck off. Nothing you are saying is relevant to the actual discussion. I’m advocating for a completely different social structure and you’re saying “but that wouldn’t work under our current system”! It’s not a compelling argument, it’s the whining of a child who is choosing not to comprehend what’s being said because it makes you uncomfy