There’s nothing stopping Dorsey from releasing all of his IP under a public license. Same with Elon who jumped on this bandwagon.
Jack Dorsey, who owns dozens of patents, conveniently does not opt to lead the charge by cancelling them all.
I am hard side eyeing everyone who are pro abolishment of IP laws. You are either mindless consumers who have never spent time and effort creating anything yourselves your entire lives, or you haven’t thought this through.
I hope for the latter.
How do you explain the vast wealth of free software and entertainment media created by both professionals and hobbyists alike? How do you explain the profitability of games and movies when any of us can pirate a copy with little effort? Why is it possible to sell copies of public domain books when we have libraries?
When software and entertainment is created for people to use for free, that is a deliberate action from the creator. They can’t do that every single time, but they can do it once in awhile if they please.
I am a professional artist and I sometimes draw things for free for other people because sometimes I decide it is worth it for me to do that. It is kinda like doing volunteer work. You don’t get paid, but it gives you something back either socially or ideologically etc.
But I am pretty sure that the people who create free software and entertainment either aren’t working full time in software or entertainment and get their money from an unrelated job or they decided to do one for the community inbetween orders. They would not do this all the time if they were financially dependent on their skills and products giving them food on the table. I don’t think you would give your own services away for free all the time in the name of community spirit. But once in awhile, is fine. Then it is an agreement you made woth yourself, that you have given a work to the community for free and therefore you don’t care about IP.
When it comes to games and copying, well, people have copied media for ages and no matter what you say, it does affect profitability. Musicians can’t earn any money on their music. They earn money on merch and when they are on tour. Nobody buys their music anymore because they can just download it for free online. I can’t speak for games as I’m not a gamer, but with movies I personally prefer to buy a physical copy of the film rather than downloading movies in poorer quality than what I would have been able to get on bluray. I don’t know, but I can imagine people still buy games to get the best quality and maybe enough people want to financially support the developers to make sure that they can still produce good games than they want to make copies and share them. If games ended up being copied to the same extent thst music does, I think you would start to see an effect on the market because making games would no longer be financially possible. In fact, the gaming industry bubble did burst a few years ago and I know a lot of developers who can’t find jobs. Similar in animation. And it is not like any of these creators lived good beforehand either. A profitable game, I doubt is profitable in the way you think it is. It is my personal experience from being both part of and a spectator in the industry that the success of any creation is largely smoke and mirrors. People are extremely poor and companies go bankrupt all the time, especially in recent years. Maybe part of it is because people decide to copy a game for free rather than buy it, maybe it is bigger than that, but people don’t really value art nowadays because they don’t see it as art, but as content that they can mindlessly consume and get easy access to. It should be easier than ever for artists to earn money with how much art people consume, but the opposite is true. If artists have their intellectual property taken from them as well in the landscape we already have, then that will be the death of the art career. We have so little already. If we can’t even keep domain over our own creation, then what is the point?
I don’t understand your argument about public domain books. Public domain refers to the material no longer having a living creator who can profit from their own work. People can sell public domain books but that money goes to the publisher who probably did a lovely new edition of an old book with pretty covers.
I don’t know what you mean. The money from a sale of a public domain book won’t financially support the author.
If we talk about a living author who owns their IP and their book is available in the library, then I still say the same thing I did before, that the library doesn’t sell the books, nor do they take ownership of the IP. The book market also has other problems than public libraries. The problems they face is that no one reads anymore, but that is a different discussion.
Exactly, people don’t actually think about this. They just think “I get stuff companies have” and not “no one will write books anymore.” If creative people can’t make money by creating, they do something else. Why make music, books, art, when doing so becomes a financial drain.
Imagine a world where you created a hit story online. Well a big company could make that a book, sell it and you see nothing. If it got big they could sell merch, which you would see none of. Big companies, by having manufacturing and distribution setup, could steal any idea at any point and put it into the machine. This would be a nightmare.
This is exactly what would happen.
I’m a creator myself and it is already hard enough to get jobs - not even well paying jobs, just jobs. Now we are competing with AI and then you’re telling me that people here on Lemmy agree with these wolves about abolishing IP laws, which means my hard work and intellectual property that I have spent countless hours on developing, is now up for grabs for anyone out there who is bigger and richer than me?
I seriously don’t believe people have thought this through, or they are lying about being creators themselves.
But I guess the “I got mine” mentality is all over the internet. Even here, lol. No one cares as long as they think it doesn’t affect them personally. Ladidah. How did that go for the American farmers who voted for Trump because they thought it would help their farms?
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.
But people with tuberculosis in the third world would get to live. Decent trade off. No actually, the only good option. Anyone who even brings up art when discussing IP (much less defends it in the discussion) is a coddled narcissist with no perspective
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.
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. Art isn’t a job art is humanity. Art isn’t pointless, art is the point. I’m not arguing against art. I’m arguing against “creator” existing as a social function or identity. Look into the concept of commodification. You’ll learn a lot
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. Like without a doubt.
It calls into question everything else you’ve said and how honest you’re being. My take away from this comment is either you’re lying or ignorant on the topic. Either way you don’t seem able to have this conversation. Either way I’ll address your points. But I’m not interested in a conversation where the person on the other side is presenting false statements like facts and arguing in bad faith. I can debate conflicting opinions all day. But your need to toss in ad-hominem attacks, calling me evil because I disagree, and present false statements further undermines your stance. You are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in yelling at and insulting someone about why you think they’re wrong. That is so next-level close-minded.
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? We live in a world where food costs money. Hell, art supplies cost money. As much as you want money not to matter, it does. You sound privileged af after reading your whole response, honestly.
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.
Just writing off tons of people because they are doing what they ned to survive? Really? And you call me evil?
Well, that is extremely close-minded. Lets do a little thinking… 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 own fault because they sold their soul. Or you spent your life on your masterpiece of a book and want to make money off your life’s work, because you know, you want to eat and want money to live and enjoy life.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 because I can see the harm it will do. That’s easier than having to think about what I said and consider the fact you might be wrong. 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.
