- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.
And counterfeiters make money by stealing property.
I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.
And counterfeiters make money by stealing property.
Just because you create something doesn't mean you have exclusive right to profit from it.
You're not deprived of an idea just because someone copies your idea, IP is not real property.
IP isn't tangible.Oh, really? Who says that? My bet is somebody who has never created anything tangible. :roll:
I respect your opinion, and there are some good points on the other side, but the point about a deal being signed with a commissioned photographer is wholly irrelevant to me. That doesn't change the fact that it was put out there for all to see.I'm kinda torn on the Paris light thing since it is a temporal display. But then again the light artist probably is or has commissioned a photographer with a deal they share in revenues from sales of the images. So if someone else comes along and tries to sell images it devalues the light artists and photographers revenue.
IP isn't tangible.
Seriously, all you're doing is rationalizing your continued stealing and profiting from other's work.IP isn't tangible.
What's wrong with profiting from others work? Everyone does it.Seriously, all you're doing is rationalizing your continued stealing and profiting from other's work.
What's wrong with profiting from others work? Everyone does it.
Your position in this discussion is moot as you already recognize that ideas have value, and that you knowingly and happily steal those ideas. Your attempt to rationalize that theft after your point-blank admission isn't especially convincing.
Copyright protection shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but it should be reduced to a reasonable length of time, like 5-to-10 years, rather than allowing these private entities to become petty dictators for many decades.
IP is not excludable.
It is not controversial, in the tech world, to acknowledge that IP laws dramatically impede development, discourage cross-industry cooperation, and heavily benefit less innovative tech giants.
There's a lot more sharing and cooperation in software, but proprietary hardware designs do limit the implementations that could result from those improvements.
IP laws don't help tech innovators significantly, the man who invented the floppy disk, working late on a weekend and building the first one by hand with a manilla envelope and pink wipes, received a $1,000 bonus for a $1,000,000,000 idea. Why ? Well because the employer owns the innovator. You cannot invent if you are also running your own company. Division of labor has eroded the utility of IP law.
I've already pointed to the example of desperate creators accepting a $1000 paycheck at the expense of intellectual rights for the rest of his life. It's an adjustment that I'd like to see to the law, that being that regardless of said initial contract, an artist or engineer is compensated in the same way that musicians are paid every time their songs are played on the radio or every time an actors' commercials are aired. I'm 300% percent aware that there are problems with existing intellectual property law, but doing away with it altogether essentially means that creators don't get to make a living as a result of their creating...ever.
The problem i see is that current IP laws both screw over the tech innovator, who is now discouraged from bothering to invent things for his employer since he's only obligated to the same sized paycheck in either case, and impede development.
The primary issue is the transfer of IP rights by contract. Realistically, it is not feasible for a tech inventor to simultaneously run their own company, so an inventor (generally) must find an employer. That employer gains their employee's IP rights.
I think artists should be based on a different compensation system altogether.
The problem i see is that current IP laws both screw over the tech innovator, who is now discouraged from bothering to invent things for his employer since he's only obligated to the same sized paycheck in either case, and impede development.
The primary issue is the transfer of IP rights by contract. Realistically, it is not feasible for a tech inventor to simultaneously run their own company, so an inventor (generally) must find an employer. That employer gains their employee's IP rights.
I think artists should be based on a different compensation system altogether.
I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.
What you describe only applies to employees of companies. It doesn't apply to individuals who come up with things on their own, of which there are many.The problem i see is that current IP laws both screw over the tech innovator, who is now discouraged from bothering to invent things for his employer since he's only obligated to the same sized paycheck in either case, and impede development.
The primary issue is the transfer of IP rights by contract. Realistically, it is not feasible for a tech inventor to simultaneously run their own company, so an inventor (generally) must find an employer. That employer gains their employee's IP rights.
I think artists should be based on a different compensation system altogether.
Intellectual Property is bad for business, and bad for consumers.
Intellectual Property Is Bad for Business
Can you explain that difference clearly and why? Because unfortunately I can only really appreciate the concrete nature of this problem from the standpoint of an artist (probably because that's what I am), but when we're discussing an inventor or engineer the edges of the comparison start to lose their shape. My intuition tells me that while one field is "creative" and the other is "scientific," there should be no appreciable difference at its core.
What you describe only applies to employees of companies. It doesn't apply to individuals who come up with things on their own, of which there are many.
I would most definitely like to see what you describe made better and more equitable, too, but throwing out the whole system isn't the answer.
Intellectual Property is bad for business, and bad for consumers.
Intellectual Property Is Bad for Business