i think it’s more likely that everyone would race to the bottom to make the cheapest Marvel, Pokémon, Disney, Star Wars, Harry Potter spin offs, merch and content they could.
Comment on Jack Dorsey would like to ‘delete all IP law’.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day agoThis 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?
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
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
Lightor@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
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.
BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
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.
Nangijala@feddit.dk 1 day ago
Absolutely. We will see a scenario where the big companies readjust to the new market while everybody else loses.
This reminds me of the mocking of unions that I witnessed happening a lot online a year or two ago and I was so fucking confused how normal everyday people who didn’t own big companies could poopoo unions and call it commie shit.
In my country, we have a proud union history that has secured the rights of workers for generations so it was very bizarre to me to see - mostly Americans - mock unions as a concept.