Conversation

Notices

1. LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Thursday, 29-Jun-2023 03:25:34 JST LS

   • 💀💀💀 :0080: c̷̨̢̛̲̼̞̞͓̹͚̗̼͓͚͖͒̔̓̃̈̋̂́̏̆̐̐̈́̉͘͜ȑ̴̫͔͂̌̔̆̓͛͗́͐̍̃́̆ÿ̷̤̺̳̖͖͚͈́̄́͌͒͂͊͗̄̔̚p̶̢̧͇̞̯͍͇̤̖͖̙̫̪͋̏̃̃͗̎͜͝t̶͖̉̽̐̇i̴̭̜̼͖̬̽̀͆̃̓̂̚͝ͅc̸̡͙̪͎̫͚̫̘̱͚͔̫̣̣̒̃̋͜͝ 💀💀💀 :verified:
   • 😼 Space Catboy :redrocket:
   • iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta:
   • Aven
   @aven @icedquinn @galena @newt either way, I don't think it's of much use to get lost in definitions. Intellectual property is a wrong idea no matter if it's capitalism or not.
   • Aven (aven@shitposter.club)'s status on Thursday, 29-Jun-2023 04:54:23 JST Aven

     in reply to

     • 💀💀💀 :0080: c̷̨̢̛̲̼̞̞͓̹͚̗̼͓͚͖͒̔̓̃̈̋̂́̏̆̐̐̈́̉͘͜ȑ̴̫͔͂̌̔̆̓͛͗́͐̍̃́̆ÿ̷̤̺̳̖͖͚͈́̄́͌͒͂͊͗̄̔̚p̶̢̧͇̞̯͍͇̤̖͖̙̫̪͋̏̃̃͗̎͜͝t̶͖̉̽̐̇i̴̭̜̼͖̬̽̀͆̃̓̂̚͝ͅc̸̡͙̪͎̫͚̫̘̱͚͔̫̣̣̒̃̋͜͝ 💀💀💀 :verified:
     • 😼 Space Catboy :redrocket:
     • iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta:
     @icedquinn @lain @galena @newt even just keeping copyright/patents at their current amount of expansion seems like a pipe-dream. They continually expand and extend in a form of inflation. See the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act".
     
     In my view, the core problem is that the culture still views patents and copyright laws as a moral good: the more of them the better. The opposite is actually the case, and the "garage inventor" argument for patents imo is ridiculous as the average/typical case is them being held back by broadly worded patents. The 3d-printing explosion only took place because of patent expiry for a device that never saw much traction. It's like saying that playing the lottery can be profitable for a few who play it, so it's a net good for all who play it. (I'm not saying that's what you're arguing)
     
     Law and politics is downstream from culture, and the sentiment of "that's just the way it is" is suppressing reform. The insane RIAA and MPAA stuff has helped culturally. But there's this persistent myth that the big companies would go broke and people would starve, even if the laws just slow their expansion.
     LS likes this.
   • iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta: (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Thursday, 29-Jun-2023 04:54:24 JST iced quinnsmas :blobcatsanta:

     in reply to

     • 💀💀💀 :0080: c̷̨̢̛̲̼̞̞͓̹͚̗̼͓͚͖͒̔̓̃̈̋̂́̏̆̐̐̈́̉͘͜ȑ̴̫͔͂̌̔̆̓͛͗́͐̍̃́̆ÿ̷̤̺̳̖͖͚͈́̄́͌͒͂͊͗̄̔̚p̶̢̧͇̞̯͍͇̤̖͖̙̫̪͋̏̃̃͗̎͜͝t̶͖̉̽̐̇i̴̭̜̼͖̬̽̀͆̃̓̂̚͝ͅc̸̡͙̪͎̫͚̫̘̱͚͔̫̣̣̒̃̋͜͝ 💀💀💀 :verified:
     • 😼 Space Catboy :redrocket:
     • Aven
     @lain i have a complicated thing about that. eventually yes, we could get rid of all of it. maybe.
     
     in the short term--it's too broad now. patents were never intended to apply to math and historically were not allowed to apply to math. copyright is labeled "to further the arts." but was extended to infinity. we can't nuke it entirely [in current circumstances] because, well, if you don't want entertainers being able to support themselves anymore i guess you could :blobcatdunno:
     
     copyright itself doesn't really stop people from becoming new authors and artists, but it does need to be heavily reduced back down to a reasonable level.
     
     patents idk i don't like them. argument to be made that it gives inventors something to bait investment with, but the amount this actually works is much less. it actually does cause some problems, there's a lot less evidence we need to keep them.
     
     @galena @aven @newt