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. This 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.

  • dylanmorganEnglish
    321·
    1 year ago

    Other than liking the nice round number of 20 years, that’s exactly my take. Copyright longevity creates perverse incentives for rights holders, and it locks down the ability of other creators to use common cultural references.

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      62·
      1 year ago

      I’d say no more than 10 years for ANYTHING. Copyright, patent, you name it. I would also prohibit any and all software and design patents.

      Trademark would last only as long as actively in use.

      • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
        62·
        1 year ago

        These changes alone (without other major reforms) would be particularly catastrophic in sectors that require large investment over a long period of time. For example, pharmaceuticals typically cost billions and take 10-15 years to develop.

        • Uriel-238@lemmy.fmhy.mlEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Billions typically paid for by government subsidy, id est taxpayers. I’m not sure what the justification is for private IP rights when the capital is socialized.

          • juliebean@lemm.ee
            English
            2·
            1 year ago

            i so seldom see anyone actually write out ‘id est’ instead of ‘i.e,’ that part of my brain insisted for a solid second that it had to be a typo lol

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          43·
          1 year ago

          Pharmaceuticals is about the worst example you could pick to make a point. It’s notorious for socializing the cost and privatizing the profit (not to mention the ethics of price gouging life saving medication treatments).

          Here’s what Johnson&Johnson is doing right now with a TB drug whose development was paid largely with public funding:

          The pill, called bedaquiline, was first approved in 2012 as the first new TB drug in over 40 years and revolutionized treatment for drug-resistant infections. But its relatively high cost limited access in many low- and middle-income countries hit hardest by an epidemic that still kills around 1.5 million people every year, most of them among the world’s poorest. The company initially charged $900 per course in low-income countries, according to a 2016 report, but gradually lowered it to $340 three years ago.

          The secondary patent particularly irked some advocates because the drug’s development was largely underwritten by public funds, according to a 2020 analysis. That study found public sector funds contributed $455 million to $747 million to getting bedaquiline to market, compared to $90 million to $240 million from J&J.

          • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            The pharmaceutical companies would definitely not cut back on their profits, so at “best” they would either get public money to make it several times faster, or they would cut back on quality and safety (*lobbies have entered the chat); and in either case the final price would be higher.
            There is plenty of room to get worse, even in the current favorable conditions they prioritize known cost-effective palliative treatments over research into expensive solutions that may lead to nothing.

            If the entire health sector were public and concerned itself with saving lives instead of making money, it would be a different story, but that is where we get into major reforms.

      • DudePluto@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think you realize how incredibly short 10 years is in terms of investment recuperation. That’s not realistic unless you’re talking about abandoning capitalism all together, at which point the particulars of IP law are irrelevant

      • dylanmorganEnglish
        91·
        1 year ago

        I was talking about what copyright should be.

      • Derproid@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Damn that mouse, I’d even be fine with life of the author in theory. But life of the author +70 freaking years is ridiculous.

        • emptyother@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          People would take out hits on people to free an IP, if it is particularly valuable. So lets not bind it to an authors life at all.

    • CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you both, although imho 15/20 is a bit too long? The only reason being something can be improved better(?) by multiple entities working on it (competitively) than a single entity. Maybe 10 years? I’m thinking if I have an invention (let’s say a new engine), 10 years should be enough for me to earn my share. After that, other companies/individuals can use my base/foundation and build on it. With more people working on that engine and competing with each other, the end product would probably be much better than when I work at it alone.

      • IonAddisVolt@laguna.chatEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        So if i’m a writer writing a series over a decade, my first book, which only got me a 10k advance, will stop giving me even a pittance in royalties a decade later even as I am adding new books to the series? Most creatives are not rich household names, and your idea would not be a death knell for Disney, but for the small creators already earning poverty wages.

        • CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          Valid point (and one I initially did not consider). But I still stand by what I said, although I admit it can be more flexible if you’re contractually bound to write a series. Maybe a few years’ worth of extensions per entry or it starts after a series is over? Certainly not 70 years after an author’s death. We know books depend on popularity to sell, and we’ve seen only a few (relatively) authors get rich on their books alone.

          10 years is a long time - I would not stay in a job that doesn’t pay enough for my needs for 10 years no matter how much I enjoy it. My problem is I admittedly am not well-versed in that specific industry (trusted resources are welcome as I’ve tried searching but I don’t recognize many of the websites so idk how reliable they are). But an increase in salary (or advances) and/or royalties may be in order. I think everyone is entitled to that at this point.

          Again, this is from my admittedly limited knowledge in that specific industry, so feel free to correct me. It’s just that imho IP rights, as they are today, is kind of ludicrous.