• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Intellectual Property Laws be Abolished?

Should Intellectual Property Laws be Abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • No

    Votes: 21 84.0%
  • Total voters
    25
foadi said:
Just because you create something doesn't mean you have exclusive right to profit from it.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Who says that? My bet is somebody who has never created anything tangible. :roll:

foadi said:
You're not deprived of an idea just because someone copies your idea, IP is not real property.
Click to expand...

Oh, I strongly disagree that intellectual property isn't real. Mine is very real. Oh, and mine--all mine.
 
winston53660 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 also feel the same way about parents being forbidden from taking photos of their own kids at little league and soccer games because there's an "official photographer" who wants to sell photos.
 
foadi said:
What's wrong with profiting from others work? Everyone does it.
Click to expand...

I'll answer this even though I'm 99.999999999999% certain you're trolling. You're using "profiting from others (sic) work" as a euphemism. What you do, and which you were perfectly and unambiguously clear about, is theft. Human civilization has already answered the highly perplexing and weighty philosophical question, "Is theft wrong?" And the answer is yes. Yes it is.
 
No, but it should be modified. Copyright lasts waaaaaaaay too long. I don't think it should survive the life of the author.
 
My negatives or raw files are like money to me. And with current laws views on inheritance why shouldn't I be able to bequeath to my children or whoever I want to just like money or other property?
 
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.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Consistency said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if intellectual property is indeed property why do you support a time limit being put on it? Would you support a time limit being put on how long you can own your car? Maybe after three years your car will just be open for anyone to take.
 
Absentglare said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Absentglare said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
i favor intellectual property, but only for the *individual* who came up with the idea. Never for corporations, or descendants. Disney is a great example of theft disguised as property. Ideas are ethereal, after all. Once the individual dies or ceases to make use of this creation, so does any further financial windfall, for anyone
 
Absentglare said:
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.
Click to expand...

agreed, which is why in my ideal world, you cannot contract away IP. Whoever comes up with the idea gets to keep it. This is the only way to protect innovators, without allowing their descendants or a company to continue profiting long after they're gone. "Mickey mouse" could only be used in new productions with the consent and involvement of walt disney, the man

obviously this would also open new possibilities for innovators who are now impeded by corporations like marvel that are relying exclusively on ancient content that will someday long outlive their true creator
 
foadi said:
I make a lot of my money ignoring IP laws and using other ppls ideas.
Click to expand...

So you're a criminal defending your profiting from being a criminal?
 
Absentglare said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Viking11 said:
Intellectual Property is bad for business, and bad for consumers.

Intellectual Property Is Bad for Business
Click to expand...

Once again, it demonstrates the dark side hand of Corporatism controlling the masses. Patents last 17 years and I think they are justifiable, but I'm prejudiced because I have a patent of my own. Monsanto has been leading the charge to control markets and I think that should be illegal. The TTP or TTIP is another instance of control by Corporatism. It is way past time that the masses assumed control of their own destinies and diminish the political power of Corporations. The NWO is about Corporatism. Time to wake up.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suppose my distinction there stems from the differences in how the work is completed and how the work is appreciated.

In my view, the average, lowly engineer is very well-paid, while the average, lowly artist often struggles. I see no reason for that disconnect and i think a different payment schedule could help. I believe that artists are underpaid because they are under-marketed and under-appreciated. The more popular painters (for example) who catch the eyes of wealthy art collectors are often very well paid for authentic works, which creates a scenario where high quality, original paintings are simply not something that the common person will redeploy significant income on behalf of.

Many artists also find that their work is more appreciated after they pass away, so i think that adds another aspect of artists getting a short end of the stick.

Said another way, i think the immense wealth of some has pushed the common man out of the market for popular, authentic, high quality art. The value itself is difficult to articulate, and some are willing to deploy inordinate amounts of income.

Engineering, on the other hand, is easier to quantify. The market does a better job generating a price for smartphones and the engineers who develop them are handsomely paid on that basis.

I suppose, i think of them both as potentially creative endeavors. Some engineers end up repurposing others' designs more, but you also have artists like Milli Vanilli. The engineering discipline can create tools whose value is far easier to quantify. The value of an artistic experience is wholly subjective which creates problems. So i think artists, even bad artists, should get a basic income because their products enrich our lives in ways we do not realize.

I wholly agree that artists need to be additionally compensated on the basis of their work, rather than someone else selling it and making a profit for themselves, but i think we could find another way. If i buy the song, and play it for my friends- that's legal. If i buy the song, and make a backup copy- that's illegal. The system is flawed, artists shouldn't have these arbitrary rules and licensing issues imposed in order to make money off of their work.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that competition, especially in high tech, ends up actually hindering our ability to make progress. If i invent some new way to wirelessly communicate, i'm incentivized to hide that development from my competitors. As it stands, in order to protect my invention, i have to compulsively document it and submit it for a patent. Then, my competitor can analyze the patent and find some way to duplicate the design without violating the patent. All that work is extraneous, wasted engineering effort. The whole purpose is to secure profits but it ends up creating a lot of extra work, while me, the lowly grunt who actually invented the development, wasn't going to get a piece of that pie anyway- it all goes to my employer who can then elect to give me a measure of it, or none at all.
 
Viking11 said:
Intellectual Property is bad for business, and bad for consumers.

Intellectual Property Is Bad for Business
Click to expand...

Other.
The laws should be curtailed.

Right now IP terms are entirely too long.
We've gone from approximately two 14 year terms, that you had to opt in to get protection, to auto copy protection with life plus 70 years.
That doesn't meat constitutional muster, nor does it make sense.
It existed to both give creators of IP enough time to make a buck, while encouraging them to make more.

Other problems are that nearly 99% of IP are derivative works.
Most of those don't make any money.
Orphan works and abandon ware.
IP trolls and abusers that go after fair users with no punishment.

Tops you should get 10, maybe 20 years of protection and you have to opt in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom