Lightor
@Lightor@lemmy.world
- Comment on The gender pay gap is at average 15% in North America. When shopping though, items that are marketed for Men or Women specifically seem to be on average priced the same. 10 hours ago:
Women get childcare imposed on them at the cost of their careers and income.
OK, I can acknowledge that. That’s a struggle. I feel that man are often shouldered with financially providing for the child. But different struggles, all that should be sorted out before becoming pregnant if possible.
Nurses take schooling, and men get paid less. Trades take schooling, and men get paid more. It seems like there is just general inequality that needs do be addressed. Not saying has it harder or not, just seems like it’s a spead and should be addressed in general.
- Comment on The gender pay gap is at average 15% in North America. When shopping though, items that are marketed for Men or Women specifically seem to be on average priced the same. 18 hours ago:
I’ve seen many men in my current career take paternity leave though. I’ve also worked with a single dad. I’m not saying these aren’t a struggle but they aren’t wholey unique to women. If anything, women are legally protected while pregnant, a guy is not of he starts to struggle with a child birth.
I’m open to the idea what women make less or whatever, I’d just wanna see the numbers because this line of reasoning doesn’t really seem that persuasive.
- Comment on [deleted] 4 days ago:
Yeah, but like, I’m smart enough to know I’m not in that 65%, because I’m smarter than average.
- Comment on [deleted] 4 days ago:
I won’t understand what you said and that makes me angry!
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 6 days ago:
You seem to be doing everything to ignore the fact that they now have the right and ability to do it. Which is all that was being said and you disagreed with.
I don’t care about what usually happens. We usually don’t pay for the tutorial to a new system either, but here we are. Things change.
Let me tell you, you’re off in lala land with your interpretation
Ok, what part am I misunderstanding about being able to disable the hardware in part or whole? How does disabling the device in whole not allow them to brick it?
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
What part of wholey disable the device isn’t clicking. They can wipe the firmware. Also bricking is used in a lot of ways, but even this they can do.
This isn’t banning from online service… Did you even read what I quoted about hardware?
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
Yes. They can now brick your physical device. It is something they can now do. Brick the entire thing. That was the point of this post, and you said “no it’s just online service stuff.” My whole point was saying that’s not true. They can now brick your Nintendo Switch if you mod it. It’s not a thing the CAN do. I’m glad we finally agree.
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
What? It’s not a what if. It says they have the right to, in whole, disable the device itself. What part of that do we not know for sure. It’s literally written out…
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
That seems like exactly what they are saying with “and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.” Them saying in part makes sense with the service. I’m whole makes it very clear. How would you wholey disable a device by not having Nintendo account service?
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
It has to do with their online services; not the switch itself.
Just wrong
Literally from the terms:
“You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part.”
- Comment on Nintendo of America might turn your Switch into an expensive paperweight if you mod your console or install any "unauthorized" games, new policy warns 1 week ago:
So Nintendo just rapid firing bad PR now or what?
- Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit 1 week ago:
Yeah, Nintendo seems to think they are untouchable. They can do whatever, charge whatever, not even innovate anymore with the Switch 2, and attack fans. I’m done with Nintendo, the only way I’ll ever play any of their games is on the high seas.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch 4 weeks ago:
I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities’ financial struggle being one of them.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks 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. Why say something that is so easily disproven. In ancient Greece, artists were paid by the government to build temples and other public buildings in Athens. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, works of art were commissioned by patrons and made to order. There are tons of examples of people doing it for money and as their sole job. You are %100 wrong here.
Art isn’t a job art is humanity. Art isn’t pointless, art is the point. Cool, and how does that person making art eat?
Look into the concept of commodification. You’ll learn a lot Yes, I learned about this way back in college. It’s not some new or crazy idea. It’s not even a bad idea, it has help society throughout many points in history.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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. Sure call me evil. But if I’m evil then you are the literal devil. That kid who wants that tuberculosis medicine, how do you think we got that medicine? A company invested millions to research it. So when the next disease comes around and it’s killing millions and no one is willing to just burn millions to find a cure because they have no IP, those deaths will be because of people like you. You have this childish mindset that after IP is gone everyone will magically have meds in their hands and everything will be perfect. No, you’re just as dumb as you are evil. New diseases will come up, no one will invest in curing them because they will lose money, and people will die. The difference between me and you is I can see more than 1 month into the future on how this would effect things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
I agree. I wouldn’t be in favor of “burn it down” if I thought we could negotiate better terms with our current IP oligarchs.
So since we can’t save it, we just burn it down? The legal system isn’t doing so hot either, should we just get rid of laws? I mean rich people can break then and regular people can’t, should we just get rid of them since we can’t fix it right now?
I’ll still be available to do creative work. It wouldn’t change my current work-for-hire efforts.
I don’t know what kind of work you do, but it would impact many. You can’t show drafts, you can’t present mock-ups, etc, because they can just take those. You could make art for someone saying they will pay and then they don’t. You could get a refund, but they just copied the art and it’s theirs now.
This also harms people who in literature especially. They don’t own the book they write. And for anyone to appreciate it, they also have the ability to give it away for free. But I guess since it doesn’t impact you, it’s somehow not a problem?
Very little valuable IP is held by actual creators, today.
This may be true, but guess how they lost that IP? They sold it. They owned it and were able to sell it to a bigger company that could run away with it. Without IP the selling part goes away, they just take it and run away with it. I mean come on, how do you think authors make money?
Are you an actual published creator, or a temporarily embarrassed future billionaire? Tell me you don’t understand empathy without telling me. You made it very clear before by the “it won’t impact me” statement, but this is just next level. Because I and many other can see how this will cause damage, that means nothing because we’ve not been personally impacted?
But that falls apart when I have actually created and sold software. I have created IP. And I’ve had actually to defend my personal IP from a previous employer.
Is there a version of success for you that isn’t just selling to a big IP company to get enough money to retire? That’s what it looks like, to me.
What? You’re just making up a scenario in your head. If you can sell your IP to company and live comfortably for the rest of your life while they do all the heavy lifting and you get paid while people enjoy what you create, how is that some big loss? Because you want all the money? Sure, then self publish, it’s an option. Start a small LLC, people do it, stop acting like it’s the only way forward.
The peak of my possible success would be to write something that threatens/tempts the big IP holders enough to force them to buy me out. If I don’t take the buy out, they eventually bury my thing with their advertising power.
I mean, false. This is just wrong, people have created companies, brands, book series, etc. This just seems like you have decided you have no chance so you don’t try and want to tear down the system so you can get yours.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
So 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.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch 4 weeks ago:
Yes, I have.
But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that’s what’s being proposed.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
I didn’t read the whole book, I didn’t have time.
But since you claim to have, explain how that problem is solved. I mean you read it all right? So correct me, how is that problem solved? Show me how big of an idiot I am.
Or is this just a deflection.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
This argument falls apart with the very basic concept of self publishing which many do.
It also ignores that you get a deal with that publisher and still get paid. Without IP they don’t have to pay you.
Come on people…
- Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch 4 weeks 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.
- Comment on Who would win in a fight, a Gorilla or a Bear of equal weight? 4 weeks ago:
The smartest person in the world would lose a fight to a bear in the woods. The bear is a car with claws and thick hide trying to kill you.
- Comment on Who would win in a fight, a Gorilla or a Bear of equal weight? 4 weeks ago:
I man that’s a lot of assumptions. In that case, throw some cubs in there and the bear would fight to the death.
- Comment on A French law requiring adult sites to run age checks( facial age estimation, ...etc) and block users under 18 became applicable to sites based in France and outside of the EU. 4 weeks ago:
You seem sad
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
Yep, this is Trump’s Tariffs all over again.
And if this happened, people would cheer as they got all this stuff for free, without realizing that they just killed the future of creativity.
The irony is people want this to happen because they see companies as greedy. When in fact, this move itself would be incredibly greedy and feed the corporations that people are trying to rail against.
And all these free movies and software are only “free” until they find a way to enforce logins and always online BS for everything. Big companies won’t just give up their IP, they will fight this and find a way to hoard.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
This is no naive…
If you copy everyone else you’re not going to be profiting much, as your product isn’t competitive.
Like there are a million different waters you can buy at the grocery store but somehow there are companies that dominate three space?
You are ignoring things like advertising, branding, manufacturing quality, distribution, etc. If your logic held, at all, generics of products would outsell brand names because they are more available and cost less. But people but brand name still.
Android innovated and now they make a ton of of the OS and embedding their apps in there.
You’re ignoring situations like say, you spent 5 years of your life writing a book. Guess what, another company can print and sell it, giving you nothing. Then can then manufacturer and sell merch around it, at scale, and you get nothing. They could then even start a live action play about it, it could win awards, and they never have to ever mention you. They could actually just bury you and muddy the water, saying they created it and calling you a liar.
Yeah, there’s a reason rich people want this.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
Acting like FOSS is representing all creative work is dishonest.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
“Do inventors lose because of this? Probably.”
This calls out the exact problem with this when glosses over it. With big companies able to now swing in and steal any idea this doesn’t work. Times have changed, your idea can be ripped away and sold to everyone while you get nothing. But the mindset of this article is that “there are more copies of your idea out there so it’s cheaper for everyone.” This ignores that the inventor has less motivation to actually invent.
- Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’. 4 weeks ago:
This is just wrong. If you write a book, you own that book. Many people sell art.
What this would do is make it so that creating isn’t profitable for people. Why write a book that people can just take for free. So creatives won’t be able to make money from creating, so they’ll do something else.
This sounds like a dystopian future where everyone is a factory worker, and people are cheering it on at the thought of “free stuff.”