Comment

Comment on 'An embarrassing failure of the US patent system': Videogame IP lawyer says Nintendo's latest patents on Pokémon mechanics 'should not have happened, full stop'

<- View Parent

daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

I do believe that.

Intellectual property leads to all kind of unfairness. It should be normalized that artist would be paid for the work done, nor for property ownership.

This adds to some other believes about people shouldn’t be paid just for “property ownership”.

And once the art is done and released is part of human race, that does include terrible human beings, but it also includes absolutely everyone else.

Some other argument for this… For instance, being an artist is one of the jobs with biggest pay disparity, from the poorest of them all to some of the richest. That’s a normal output of basing income on property ownership, things snowball once you have enough property.

I don’t think there’s a way to make private property (physical or intelectual) work in a fair economy. And remember, private property is not the same as personal property, just in case.

source

Sort:hotnew top

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
You live in a dream world. Why would I release my music to the public when there are people who will make a living stealing it, putting their name on it, and selling 1000x more than you ever could because they already have name recognition? And those people WILL exist for every form of creative content.

source
- ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah… victory belonging to the person with the widest reach and deepest pockets rather than the originator of the material/idea is one way to ensure that all creatives become paupers. This is one of those many on-paper ideas that, without the upheaval of pretty much every other established human social structure, would be awful in practice.
  
  source
  - kureta@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    Yeah… victory belonging to the person with the widest reach
    
    I thought you were going to say something about Spotify for a moment.
    
    source
- daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Because you will be paid for it?
  
  In the current world I could torrent your music and you’ll be “losing money” and will end up investing more work in anti-piracy and advertisement than in making good music.
  
  If instead you would be paid for the making of the music regardless of how many copies of a digital file you sold by a better system that’s not based on private property and the means of capitalism, it would mean that you could 100% focus on making music and everyone could enjoy the things you made.
  
  Everyone will be happy, except investors and people thriving of this inefficient and unfair system.
  
  source
  - AgentRocket@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    If instead you would be paid for the making of the music regardless of how many copies of a digital file you sold by a better system that’s not based on private property
    
    And how would that system decide how much you get paid and where would the money for that payment come from? How do you make sure a carefully crafted piece of music, that brings happiness to millions of people gets paid fairly compared to someone just putting together a song in 5 minutes by pressing random notes on the keyboard?
    
    source
    floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    What is “fair compensation”, in this case, for you? Does bringing joy to millions of people entitle you to more money or do you see the happiness you shared and subsequent fame as part of your “payment” - what you get out of it?
    
    source
    daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Any system to evaluate compensation would be better than the actual one, which is a completely mess that does not properly compensate artists for their work.
    
    Currently marketing, frontstore presence and market dominance is far more relevant on a particular artist income than their craft.
    
    Any system that actually would think about what people think about a particular craft, how much time and effort got put into it, how much it was enjoyed, etc, would be better. Currently is just about who can make more sales and get more ad money, the art is secondary and I’m being generous.
    
    source
  - prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Ok but you’re literally describing a utopia. That is not a world that exists in reality.
    
    source
    daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    So is a world without murder. That doesn’t mean that we should defend murderers doesn’t it?
    
    A world where gay people had equal rights surely was an utopia on the year 1800s, look how far have we come. Thanks to people that though that a better word is, indeed, possible.
    
    Why wouldn’t we strive for a better way of doing things? Why defend faulty systems that we know they are bad just because those are the systems currently in place?
    
    I do believe we can be better.
    
    And if not… Piracy it is.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Doomsider@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  99+% of art is never sold. The vast majority of artist don’t make money. Who really cares about the extreme minority who use capitalism to control our culture. They don’t get to decide what the rest of the world does purely for their economic interests.
  
  No they don’t need any mechanism. The arts and sciences existed for thousands of years without modern silly interpretations for commercial interests.
  
  source
  - prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    So for the artists that created works but did not sell them, you believe that they would be fine with someone else photocopying it and then selling it themselves?
    
    source
    Doomsider@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
echodot@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
People need to be compensated for their work, that may end up being an awful lot and probably in excess of what they need, but that’s how it has to work. Any other system would just disincentivize people from putting in the effort, in fact it would force them not to because they would have to do something else in order to earn enough money to live. The precise opposite of your desired outcome would happen, the rich would produce endless amounts of content just to more money, and all the smaller artists would have to go and get a job in Costco or something.

The only way your idea would work is if we completely change the economic system and got rid of money. Which I’m all in favour of but I suspect is probably outside of the scope of copyright law.

source