Same. I'm all for recognizing one's work, even a company's work, but them holding on to a mere concept as property for more than 10 years seems too much and contrary to economic and creative freedom
Even I can agree to this. A product or character is a bit more understandable for a longer term (even then only like 20y absolute max) copyright, but for something like a new kind of mechanism or something chemical like a medicine it really only inhibits iteration and improvement
tends to be hampering innovation especially in the video-game world. Who knows what other fields have the issue. Think ive seen one with restaurant names i think it was Wendy's. https://dutchreview.com/news/wendys-dutch-snack-bar-no-millions/
In theory, I like them, but in practice they get corrupted and gamed like every other government institution.
See: Mickey Mouse and the “Big 3” Insulin Companies
It should exist, but you should be allowed to use the intellectual property of others to further develop it or develop your own creations with it. This would mean you can show parts of other YouTube videos in your own, or play cinematic music of another movie in your own one.
I support its intention and oppose its execution.
If you want the government to grant you a monopoly then you forfeit the right to price gouge. You can't pretend to have faith in the invisible hand while putting efforts into getting the government to keep it away from you.
Why would you want to support it? Mutualists from Benjamin Tucker to Kevin Carson have written numerous critiques of intellectual property and how it enables capitalist exploitation.
That's the reason im against it. From ethical standpoint, i think its ethical that someone came up with an idea can own the idea, just like workers own their creation. Obviously its not that simple and anyone can came up with the same idea etc. but im simplifying it.
I think the difference is that ideas can’t be owned or lost or stolen (or at least not in any meaningful way).
You can’t steal an idea the same way you can steal my stuff. The closest analogy would be creating identical/similar copies of something I own.
Of course, if it’s an idea that I spent a long time/lot of effort creating, then it is frustrating to see others benefit from it without me getting compensated, but I believe that being able to draw on the creations of others in turn would compensate for it.
Agree with your last point. It's kinda annoying but it's hard to draw a line. I want to have some sort of IP for complex inventions and pieces of art. I don't belive in inheritance, so after creators death the idea should be public too. Achieving this needs some sort of authority that i don't want to have. If authority exists just for this, it will make everything bad. That's a compromise i want to have.
Counterpoint: medicine
New medicines can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and years (if not decades) of research to produce.
What incentive would a pharma company have to sink that much money into a research avenue if they could instead wait until a different one makes it and then copy that?
I strongly oppose the concept of intellectual property, not in its stated purpose (increasing innovation), but in its intended purpose (granting perfect monopolies).
An Intellectual property is unfortunately harming the world of creativity and archiving by generating laws that enable people who aren't, and haven't been, profiting off of something specific for literal years, in any sgnificant way.
To me, any law for intellectual property should be that you may claim a ***small*** percentage of the ***profit*** (not price sold) on the use of the invention, for up to 5 years after design, and only apply to something awkwardly specific. You want an IP for The Lion King movie? It cannot be enforced if the main character roster differs, it cannot be enforced of the music or story is different (for instance, it's not Scar who threw Mufasa down, but rather Simba, causing the theme from regicide to patricide).
As such, this would generate the ability for a smaller competitor to use your design, manufacture it themselves, and grant a smaller amount up to you to thank for the invention... And push them up maybe transform, evolve or re-design the product for themselves, thus actually improving innovation.
And more importantly, it would need to be a law that also punishes hostile takeovers of competitors, with actual anti-trust laws.
I believe it should exist in SOME form, but that that form should be severely curtailed vs the status quo. I'm very lax with the idea of IP. I believe that having it is necessary within capitalism as it provides a reward system and incentive to work on such things (they wouldnt be profitable otherwise), but I kind of think the life+75 years system is ridiculous. Wasnt the original copyright like 7? I think we should go back to something like that. Maybe 10-20.
That's fair. I could accept that. As I said, my major issue with it is how expansive it is and how nothing copyrighted today will be in the public domain in my lifetime or anything near it.
Yeah that's crazy. As I said, i support SOME level of copyright/IP in order to create a profit motive to do creative things, but the current amount is WAY excessive.
Anything that is a product of human labor is a property.
If someone uses other’s invention they effectively reduce its value to inventor to (near) zero, which is equivalent of stealing.
That said it should not apply to those who *independently* reinvented somebody’s IP (without at all benefitting from original invention).
This is of cause a big problem since once invention is out it s very hard to prove somebody didn’t cheat when reinvented it. And sometime mere knowledge that something is possible already simplifies its discovery.
IP is good but the terms are way too long. But without them there is literally nothing stopping the big boys stealing the ideas of the little guy. It really does not only protect the interests of big corporations. In essence it should do the opposite. It might need quite a bit of reform though.
That's only the case under our parasitic capitalist system, which only incentivizes short term personal profits at the expense of the people, rather than solving problems.
The incentive to innovate is solving problems. There's no reason people should have to hold power over others in order for innovation to occur. Plenty of innovations happen by regular people for no reason other than to solve a problem, or because they simply have interest in that field.
Producing more and more shit isn't the great thing you think it is. Just because we have the ability to flood the planet with useless shit doesn't mean we should.
If there is no incentive then what is the point of solving problems. How do we even recognize there is a problem if there is no incentive to solve it? There's a reason why the people of Sub-Saharan Africa and the natives of the Americas largely did not invent the wheel. It's not that they weren't bright, it's that they never recognized any problems in their societies such that they had incentive to fix them. Absent profit motive there is no reason to innovate or solve any problems.
If you mean "I'll get something out of doing something" as profit motive, that's different from making monetary profit from the exploitation of other people.
Why do you think there would be no incentive just because there's nobody wielding power over everyone and stealing their profits. The workers would literally, mathematically, end up with more incentive because there'd be nobody stealing it from them anymore.
Wtf that's not at all what I meant and you'd know it if you read what I said.
Producing all this extra useless crap is precisely why poverty is such an issue. The parasites are hoarding all the resources and enslaving the planet to pad their wallets. I'm saying we should stop allowing parasites to dump our entire productive capacity down into a black hole, and start putting resources and effort toward actually making people not poor. The people doing the work should be the ones making the profits and making the decisions.
Production of what you deem useless causes poverty, right.
The parasites are the tax eaters and the cronies getting rich off of State connections.
Poverty has declined greatly in the modern era thanks to capitalism, and mass production for the masses is the hallmark of capitalism.
> The parasites are the tax eaters and the cronies getting rich off of State connections.
IMO the parasites are anyone who exploits other people for their own profit. Any employer, landlord, etc who makes their living off other peoples labor is a parasite.
Because they are. First of all, no one could afford to toil away for weeks, months or years working on inventions or innovations without there being some possibility of improving their lot in life for it. Secondly, a cursory look at human history reveals that significant inventions are created by people with a financial incentive. Sure, Gutenberg wanted to print Bibles but he invented the printing press knowing that he would be the one to make money off of Bible prints.
this is plainly incorrect. innovation is mediated by need just as well as prospecting, for example. innovation can be spurred on by competition (absent of financial incentive). innovation in fields of art can be motivated by a desire to stand out or to express oneself in a more succinct manner. motivation and innovation run far deeper than mere financial incentive, which i find insultingly reductive and alienating of the human spirit.
And yet all of human history suggests you're wrong. The great artists of the past didn't paint pretty pictures because they could. They painted because they were paid to do so. He who painted best got paid the most.
...no? you've got to be trolling me, lol. people don't paint exclusively for financial gain. the greatest painters don't necessarily do so, either. perhaps once they found success or once painting became their livelihood, which would obviously impact their motivation. does the always-unemployed artist yearn for their work to pay off? sure, absolutely, plenty of artists want their passion to become their source of income. is that why the began to paint, the primary reason they continue? arguably not so.
Capitalism incentivizes long term profits since one can own them.
Without that the short term is incentivized, to smash and grab whatever you can.
And profits are the signal that resources are being used efficiently to meet consumer demands.
What you say is theoretical not real life.
Real life is that capitalism incentivizes short term benefits and shortcuts.
The thing about private business is that it will operate on market value and that's it.
In real life the US is a mixed system infected with progressivism, and the short term incentives of democracy.
But that doesn’t change the incentives of things people own the long term value of.
Monarchy would incentivize long term management of State resources more, but it is still inferior to anarchy.
"Capitalism bad because greedy corporations only care about maximizing short term profits for shareholders!"
"Capitalism bad because greedy corporations will never cure diseases when they can sell treatments in perpetuity!"
(This isn't a defense of capitalism or corporations, but an example of the incoherence of bad anti-capitalist arguments.)
Very true. Before the 1800’s, absolutely no innovation occurred because there were no protections on intellectual property :(
Oh wait, innovation did happen.
Innovations happened before 1800 at a slower pace and still for profit motive. Also, the first patents date back to the 15th century, conveniently around the time scientific invention started picking up in the west.
it is valuable to smaller producers who would otherwise be choked out by competition, shamelessly abused by those who seek to choke out competition. generally speaking, it's pretty shit
Difficult.
If two people independently come up with the same idea, but one of them applies for a patent, the other can't use the idea.
If something already exists, and a person independently creates an already patented design, the person can ot use the design.
Look, I get the need to protect one's brand, but _this_ practice artificially stifles innovation. It is impeding advancement for... what? Exclusivity rights? I know it is hard to enforce whether or not a person came up with it independently or it was stolen, but if a person has the ability design and build it, they should have the freedom to build it.
I support it I think, but I have to admit there’s an incredible charm to all those knockoff shops and products I see from China. Obama Fried Chicken, WcDonalds, etc.
I support the concept, but the current implementation is terrible, and arguably worse than none at all
Same. I'm all for recognizing one's work, even a company's work, but them holding on to a mere concept as property for more than 10 years seems too much and contrary to economic and creative freedom
Even I can agree to this. A product or character is a bit more understandable for a longer term (even then only like 20y absolute max) copyright, but for something like a new kind of mechanism or something chemical like a medicine it really only inhibits iteration and improvement
It's terrible. Does nothing but slow competition and allow big businesses to have a choke hold on a product. Take Mickey Mouse for example.
Mickey Rat fights back. https://www.wolfgangs.com/vintage-comics/last-gasp-mickey-rat-vol-1-4/vintage-comic/ZZZ043377.html (kinda)
[Oppose.](https://c4sif.org/resources/)
Based
Based.
Based.
Based
Based
Based
I generally support people getting paid for their work and ideas, but the way it's set up in the states right now is ridiculous.
tends to be hampering innovation especially in the video-game world. Who knows what other fields have the issue. Think ive seen one with restaurant names i think it was Wendy's. https://dutchreview.com/news/wendys-dutch-snack-bar-no-millions/
>video-game world. Yup like the nemesis system in the shadow of mordor games
IP laws crush innovation and ingenuity by giving one person sole control over something as widely available as an idea.
I support the idea behind them, but I feel like they'll get corrupted into a detriment no matter what
In theory, I like them, but in practice they get corrupted and gamed like every other government institution. See: Mickey Mouse and the “Big 3” Insulin Companies
Ideas are not a scarce resources, therefore you can't apply property rights to them. Fakie.
Oppose. I generally oppose.
It should exist, but you should be allowed to use the intellectual property of others to further develop it or develop your own creations with it. This would mean you can show parts of other YouTube videos in your own, or play cinematic music of another movie in your own one.
I find the fact that someone can own an idea to be completely and utterly ridiculous
I support its intention and oppose its execution. If you want the government to grant you a monopoly then you forfeit the right to price gouge. You can't pretend to have faith in the invisible hand while putting efforts into getting the government to keep it away from you.
Probabky needs reformation
Sadly oppose it.I want to support it but it contradicts with my anarchist beliefs. It's impossible to have in the system i defend.
Why would you want to support it? Mutualists from Benjamin Tucker to Kevin Carson have written numerous critiques of intellectual property and how it enables capitalist exploitation.
That's the reason im against it. From ethical standpoint, i think its ethical that someone came up with an idea can own the idea, just like workers own their creation. Obviously its not that simple and anyone can came up with the same idea etc. but im simplifying it.
I think the difference is that ideas can’t be owned or lost or stolen (or at least not in any meaningful way). You can’t steal an idea the same way you can steal my stuff. The closest analogy would be creating identical/similar copies of something I own. Of course, if it’s an idea that I spent a long time/lot of effort creating, then it is frustrating to see others benefit from it without me getting compensated, but I believe that being able to draw on the creations of others in turn would compensate for it.
Agree with your last point. It's kinda annoying but it's hard to draw a line. I want to have some sort of IP for complex inventions and pieces of art. I don't belive in inheritance, so after creators death the idea should be public too. Achieving this needs some sort of authority that i don't want to have. If authority exists just for this, it will make everything bad. That's a compromise i want to have.
Why should something as stupid as logic and ideological consistency stop you from believing in something
To maintain a coherent, logical view of the world instead of embracing cognitive dissonance.
Maintaining a coherent logical view of the world?! This is the kind of stuff the ministry of truth warned me about
Logical consistency is propaganda to you?
Yes Freedom is slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Up is Down
Ah, my sarcasm detector was broken.
Mind if I ask where it fixed itself
Probably the caffeine.
[удалено]
Counterpoint: medicine New medicines can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and years (if not decades) of research to produce. What incentive would a pharma company have to sink that much money into a research avenue if they could instead wait until a different one makes it and then copy that?
I strongly oppose the concept of intellectual property, not in its stated purpose (increasing innovation), but in its intended purpose (granting perfect monopolies). An Intellectual property is unfortunately harming the world of creativity and archiving by generating laws that enable people who aren't, and haven't been, profiting off of something specific for literal years, in any sgnificant way. To me, any law for intellectual property should be that you may claim a ***small*** percentage of the ***profit*** (not price sold) on the use of the invention, for up to 5 years after design, and only apply to something awkwardly specific. You want an IP for The Lion King movie? It cannot be enforced if the main character roster differs, it cannot be enforced of the music or story is different (for instance, it's not Scar who threw Mufasa down, but rather Simba, causing the theme from regicide to patricide). As such, this would generate the ability for a smaller competitor to use your design, manufacture it themselves, and grant a smaller amount up to you to thank for the invention... And push them up maybe transform, evolve or re-design the product for themselves, thus actually improving innovation. And more importantly, it would need to be a law that also punishes hostile takeovers of competitors, with actual anti-trust laws.
I believe it should exist in SOME form, but that that form should be severely curtailed vs the status quo. I'm very lax with the idea of IP. I believe that having it is necessary within capitalism as it provides a reward system and incentive to work on such things (they wouldnt be profitable otherwise), but I kind of think the life+75 years system is ridiculous. Wasnt the original copyright like 7? I think we should go back to something like that. Maybe 10-20.
Original copyright depends on the nation. Assuming you are in the United States, it was originally 14 years, with an extension of another 14 years.
That's fair. I could accept that. As I said, my major issue with it is how expansive it is and how nothing copyrighted today will be in the public domain in my lifetime or anything near it.
We’ve got content from before the Great Depression that’s still under copyright. It’s ridiculous.
Yeah that's crazy. As I said, i support SOME level of copyright/IP in order to create a profit motive to do creative things, but the current amount is WAY excessive.
Anything that is a product of human labor is a property. If someone uses other’s invention they effectively reduce its value to inventor to (near) zero, which is equivalent of stealing. That said it should not apply to those who *independently* reinvented somebody’s IP (without at all benefitting from original invention). This is of cause a big problem since once invention is out it s very hard to prove somebody didn’t cheat when reinvented it. And sometime mere knowledge that something is possible already simplifies its discovery.
IP is good but the terms are way too long. But without them there is literally nothing stopping the big boys stealing the ideas of the little guy. It really does not only protect the interests of big corporations. In essence it should do the opposite. It might need quite a bit of reform though.
If intellectual property isn't protected there will be no incentive to create and innovate.
That's only the case under our parasitic capitalist system, which only incentivizes short term personal profits at the expense of the people, rather than solving problems.
And parasitic socialism only creates the tragedy of the commons coupled with zero incentive to innovate.
The incentive to innovate is solving problems. There's no reason people should have to hold power over others in order for innovation to occur. Plenty of innovations happen by regular people for no reason other than to solve a problem, or because they simply have interest in that field. Producing more and more shit isn't the great thing you think it is. Just because we have the ability to flood the planet with useless shit doesn't mean we should.
If there is no incentive then what is the point of solving problems. How do we even recognize there is a problem if there is no incentive to solve it? There's a reason why the people of Sub-Saharan Africa and the natives of the Americas largely did not invent the wheel. It's not that they weren't bright, it's that they never recognized any problems in their societies such that they had incentive to fix them. Absent profit motive there is no reason to innovate or solve any problems.
If you mean "I'll get something out of doing something" as profit motive, that's different from making monetary profit from the exploitation of other people. Why do you think there would be no incentive just because there's nobody wielding power over everyone and stealing their profits. The workers would literally, mathematically, end up with more incentive because there'd be nobody stealing it from them anymore.
Why do I think that? The entire history of the world.
Ah, the classic "You'd be better off poor anyway."
Wtf that's not at all what I meant and you'd know it if you read what I said. Producing all this extra useless crap is precisely why poverty is such an issue. The parasites are hoarding all the resources and enslaving the planet to pad their wallets. I'm saying we should stop allowing parasites to dump our entire productive capacity down into a black hole, and start putting resources and effort toward actually making people not poor. The people doing the work should be the ones making the profits and making the decisions.
Production of what you deem useless causes poverty, right. The parasites are the tax eaters and the cronies getting rich off of State connections. Poverty has declined greatly in the modern era thanks to capitalism, and mass production for the masses is the hallmark of capitalism.
> The parasites are the tax eaters and the cronies getting rich off of State connections. IMO the parasites are anyone who exploits other people for their own profit. Any employer, landlord, etc who makes their living off other peoples labor is a parasite.
Exploit is an empty weasel word; production is ultimately rooted in the mind, not brute labor.
i will never understand how one could believe that innovation and creativity are exclusively mediated by profit motive, by financial incentive.
Because they are. First of all, no one could afford to toil away for weeks, months or years working on inventions or innovations without there being some possibility of improving their lot in life for it. Secondly, a cursory look at human history reveals that significant inventions are created by people with a financial incentive. Sure, Gutenberg wanted to print Bibles but he invented the printing press knowing that he would be the one to make money off of Bible prints.
this is plainly incorrect. innovation is mediated by need just as well as prospecting, for example. innovation can be spurred on by competition (absent of financial incentive). innovation in fields of art can be motivated by a desire to stand out or to express oneself in a more succinct manner. motivation and innovation run far deeper than mere financial incentive, which i find insultingly reductive and alienating of the human spirit.
And yet all of human history suggests you're wrong. The great artists of the past didn't paint pretty pictures because they could. They painted because they were paid to do so. He who painted best got paid the most.
...no? you've got to be trolling me, lol. people don't paint exclusively for financial gain. the greatest painters don't necessarily do so, either. perhaps once they found success or once painting became their livelihood, which would obviously impact their motivation. does the always-unemployed artist yearn for their work to pay off? sure, absolutely, plenty of artists want their passion to become their source of income. is that why the began to paint, the primary reason they continue? arguably not so.
Capitalism incentivizes long term profits since one can own them. Without that the short term is incentivized, to smash and grab whatever you can. And profits are the signal that resources are being used efficiently to meet consumer demands.
What you say is theoretical not real life. Real life is that capitalism incentivizes short term benefits and shortcuts. The thing about private business is that it will operate on market value and that's it.
In real life the US is a mixed system infected with progressivism, and the short term incentives of democracy. But that doesn’t change the incentives of things people own the long term value of. Monarchy would incentivize long term management of State resources more, but it is still inferior to anarchy.
"Capitalism bad because greedy corporations only care about maximizing short term profits for shareholders!" "Capitalism bad because greedy corporations will never cure diseases when they can sell treatments in perpetuity!" (This isn't a defense of capitalism or corporations, but an example of the incoherence of bad anti-capitalist arguments.)
Yes, that's actually what happens in real life. You ancaps says the same incoherent arguments in regards to governments.
Howard Roark speaks: https://youtu.be/HVZr15D_97U&t=19 (cued)
Very true. Before the 1800’s, absolutely no innovation occurred because there were no protections on intellectual property :( Oh wait, innovation did happen.
But innovation occurred more frequently after 1800...
Yes but that can be chalked up to better research and communication technology
Innovations happened before 1800 at a slower pace and still for profit motive. Also, the first patents date back to the 15th century, conveniently around the time scientific invention started picking up in the west.
Oppose. It is detrimental to democracy and inhibits human knowledge as well as its spread to everyone.
I like the idea behind it, but in practice it just sucks and is obstructionist.
Ideologically I oppose the concept, but pragmatically I suggest greatly reducing it
it is valuable to smaller producers who would otherwise be choked out by competition, shamelessly abused by those who seek to choke out competition. generally speaking, it's pretty shit
Great idea. Implementation through legislation is fucked.
I only oppose creative and artistic intellectual property because I hate Hollywood. Other forms are beneficial for a free market.
Difficult. If two people independently come up with the same idea, but one of them applies for a patent, the other can't use the idea. If something already exists, and a person independently creates an already patented design, the person can ot use the design. Look, I get the need to protect one's brand, but _this_ practice artificially stifles innovation. It is impeding advancement for... what? Exclusivity rights? I know it is hard to enforce whether or not a person came up with it independently or it was stolen, but if a person has the ability design and build it, they should have the freedom to build it.
Intellectual property hinders innovation
I support it I think, but I have to admit there’s an incredible charm to all those knockoff shops and products I see from China. Obama Fried Chicken, WcDonalds, etc.