Intellectual Property should be abolished - change my mind! - Lemmy.world
lemmy.world
I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone. As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

Hey mateys!

I made a post at /c/libertarianism about the abolition of IP. Maybe some of you will find it interesting.

Please answer in the other community so that all the knowledge is in one place and easier to discover.

  • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    01·
    1 year ago

    This is the decision of the consumers. If we as a society do not want the big corporations to become too powerful, we should not give them any money. Most people will have to learn the hard way when their own ideas are sold cheaper elsewhere until they understand that it is better to support the original and the actual creator. But anything else is pure paternalism, which I cannot support. I am of course aware that there will always be people who will take advantage of this situation. But everyone must decide for themselves whether it is worth it. Otherwise, the product may no longer exist.

    As I said: In a free market, supply can be determined by demand. So if most people stopped ordering shit on amazon every day, we wouldn’t be where we are now. First of all, everyone can take a look at their own nose and not blame everything on daddy state. As if that would help you in any way.

    • Galtiel@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      So you’re just going to ignore reality in favor of what you think “should” be happening.

      If someone like you was in charge, we’d swiftly find ourselves living in company towns and working 18 hour days on assembly lines, only to be swiftly culled the instant some form of automation made us redundant.

      You say you’re aware that there will always be people to take advantage of a situation where there is absolutely no protections for the consumer, but you are woefully ignorant of the scale to which advantage would be taken.

      • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        01·
        1 year ago

        As a libertarian, I don’t want anyone to decide about anyone. And that’s the line I’m working towards, refining and testing in discussions like this one. But I see that you are definitely a greater realist, because you know from the beginning what the right way is.

        • Galtiel@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          We already know what happens when regulations are eased. People die, profits soar, workers are abused. It isn’t some philosophical theory, it’s what happens. It’s what has always happened throughout history.

          That’s why there are regulations in the first place. Because horrible things kept happening to people and we collectively decided that it would be better if that didn’t continue. Shitty things happened and as a result, regulations were put into place. That’s what happened and that’s the reality we live in. To suggest otherwise is to live in a fantasy land.

          • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            02·
            1 year ago

            Just like today: People die, profits soar, workers are exploited. IP won’t chamge anything aslong as we the people don’t change. Regulations are mostly favour the rich as they can afford to find loopholes in them, the weak must suffer under them.

    • daemoz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      So your answer will result in creators having to compete with people who dont create, but market better. This will discourage creators and the result will be less non corporate content will be created for us, everything will be bland crap made for mass consumption.

      • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        01·
        1 year ago

        Then you can start doing meaningful stuff for yourself, your friends, interested people who are willing to pay for the orginality and not some soulless copycat.

    • Muetzenman@feddit.deEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      The one with more money will most likely win. They have better marketing, lawers, and ereryting else to outcompete every upcoming buissnes. The moment the small competetor has a real chnce they wave with enough money to make you quit. And why wouldn’t you? You work for moneyafter all. How can you determine the actuall demand if you don’t have the numbers with no way to get them?

      There is no free market and there has never been one.

      • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        02·
        1 year ago

        And that is exactly what is happening today. Do you think IP is not exploited by the big rich companies in such a way that it helps them? A small author won’t have the same opportunities as a big publisher, who will exploit him to the hilt. But the problem is that now the publisher gets the lion’s share of the licensing costs for the duration of the IP licence and the author can’t sell it anywhere else because he is bound.