The only people who claim Intellectual Property isn't real or shouldn't be respected also tend to be the same people who cant support themselves off of intellectual pursuits.
Why is it always the second someone doesnt personally benefit from a right, any right, is the moment they think that right should be abolished?
IP is artificial scarcity, which IMO is not beneficial to society at large and actually hinders progress instead of promoting it.
I acknowledge that there are lots of shades of gray in this, but it's generally how I consider IP.
BTW, as a software developer I absolutely could embrace IP in order to make money. I choose not to.
@freemo Good question. What is the difference between fairness and cheating if there are no explicit rules? Something that is constantly being negotiated and therefore being complained about I would assume.
@snow clips, specifically with regards to commentary is actually legal and falls under fair-use.
@freemo Not really? Free software, and in particular copyleft, is a way to subvert copyright by people writing software.
Also, in academia (surely an "intellectual pursuit"), copyright for papers is hardly a boon to the authors.
@freemo Also, I think it might be useful to revert the statement: why is it always people that can benefit from restricted access/monopoly that want sharing to be illegal?
Frankly, I think that public libraries are hugely beneficial even if they reduce potential sales (emphasis on "potential")... and the same logic applies to sharing books (and other media) online.
@eldaking Public libraries that use tax money in order to buy the rights to books from authors and then share it for free with the public **is** hugely beneficial. It also doesnt violate intellectual property rights in any way.
@freemo Yes, the law allows it, because it recognizes that it is important and fair to allow a book bought once to be passed to different readers, as many times as possible. The fact that this might reduce sales is not important.
Can they just receive the donation of an e-book that was read once and offer it freely to one user at once? Can I have an online book club where I just share my (legally bought) e-books with people from around the world?
The law should not prevent this either.
@freemo I just wished that more things were released to the public domain after a shorter period. 70 years after the death of the author is so incredibly long, and it's so easy for mega corps to hoard culture.
@conatus I am a huge supporter of open-source. But by choice not force. As for public domain. I'd be fine with decreasing it to something like "up to the authors death" but that has issues since the author could be a corperation that doesnt die.
@freemo A suggestion I once read was to have a fixed duration after which you can extend it, getting progressively more expensive with each extension, so that things that are actually valuable/in use can be kept under copyright but things that are under copyright but forgotten / unused / hoarded will be released to the public domain.
I haven't 'game-theoried' this through so there are probably some holes
IRL I try to support small creators, while pirating without remorse from the mega-corps
@conatus Not a horrible idea actually, though the details of how that is implemented is important
@freemo ummm... who are you talking about and how do you conclude they can't support themselves through intellectual pursuits? (unless by "off of" you mean "by exploiting the uneducated masses")
I'm only familiar with the topic through free software movement, and that's mostly bunch of nerds who can only ever hope to support themselves through intellectual pursuits and nothing else (meaning since they are alive they quite clearly can).
@namark I am talking about a general class of people I have met. No one you are likely to know by name.
@namark I know some by name yes
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.