This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.
Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.
gradual@lemmings.world 21 hours ago
Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.
There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.
They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.
Alteon@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I agree that most creators don’t become wealthy, and yes, there’s plenty of abuse and inequality in how IP laws are applied. But removing those laws wouldn’t solve that - it would just give even more power to the entities with the most money, reach, and legal muscle.
Without IP protections, smaller inventors and musicians wouldn’t even have the option to negotiate or earn anything off their work. A major label or corporation could just take it, polish it, and release it as their own without any consequences.
So while the system isn’t perfect, saying it “only exists to make the rich richer” misses the point. The alternative isn’t more equity, it’s no recourse at all for the little guy.
gradual@lemmings.world 20 hours ago
How would that corporation make money off of it without copyright and patent laws?