Copyrights and patents generate enormous amounts of wealth from rent seeking. This wealth has been used to continue to entrench these draconian concepts into our legal and governmental systems.
Even worse they have been used to stop the spread of information and monopolize development thus slowing down technological advancement. So many people have died so these clowns can make a buck.
One could argue that artificial scarcity is a farce, but unless you have more money than the people who benefit from IP, your voice will not be heard on a policy level.
I think there is a balance to be made. Some anti capitalist measures are needed to encourage innovation. But the use of patent laws as a defence, or copyright to seek excessive rent are far too aggressive.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties. We definitely need to think about solutions that have not been proposed before.
As much as I would like to advocate for abolishment of IP, I recognize it is an unrealistic demand.
After all, IP didn’t magically appear. It took hundreds of years of court cases and laws passed to get to the arguably ridiculous point we are now.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties.
There’s nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it’s against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don’t compromise in advance.
Copyrights and patents generate enormous amounts of wealth from rent seeking. This wealth has been used to continue to entrench these draconian concepts into our legal and governmental systems.
Even worse they have been used to stop the spread of information and monopolize development thus slowing down technological advancement. So many people have died so these clowns can make a buck.
One could argue that artificial scarcity is a farce, but unless you have more money than the people who benefit from IP, your voice will not be heard on a policy level.
So, you agree patents and copyrights are contrary to capitalism and free markets?
Personally, I think that if small business capitalism actually existed then it would run contrary to that.
There would be no need for copyright or patents. These systems create artificial scarcity which hinders society as a whole to benefit a minority.
I feel like our existing system of laissez-faire capitalism fully embraces the rent seeking found in intellectual property.
I think there is a balance to be made. Some anti capitalist measures are needed to encourage innovation. But the use of patent laws as a defence, or copyright to seek excessive rent are far too aggressive.
If there is any chance of reform it would have to still appeal to all parties. We definitely need to think about solutions that have not been proposed before.
As much as I would like to advocate for abolishment of IP, I recognize it is an unrealistic demand.
After all, IP didn’t magically appear. It took hundreds of years of court cases and laws passed to get to the arguably ridiculous point we are now.
I like the idea of having to pay a fee to retain copyright. And that fee doubles every year.
It starts off low but after a decade or two it becomes more economical to let the copyright lapse.
Patents should be scrapped completely.
Oh, I like that because it puts a ever increasing burden to use it or lose it. Once it is no longer profitable it goes back to public domain.
I find patents of dubious value to say the least. It is definitely the worst part of IP.
There’s nothing such as change that appeals to all parties; that is not how that works. Change, good or bad, is forced by one segment of society over another, doubly so when it’s against the interests of the ultra-rich. Don’t compromise in advance.