They probably won't. But that isn't even the point, it's the deflection. People had an option to vote. They didn't. They are complicit.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 234
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 234
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes, they should listen, but it's two separate things. Regardless what the DNC does, each person has a choice, a chance cast a choice.
People had a choice, they could have impacted the outcome and choose not to. Those people, by not doing anything, were accepting that the worser outcome could happen, and they were ok with that. If they weren't, they would have taken action, within their power, to prevent it.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes they were significant enough to listen to, but at some point people need to take accountability. You can only control what you do, not others.
If the party was unwilling to change, they still had a choice to make. They made that choice. They had the ability to impact the outcome and they didn't.
There is more than one issue to care about in the world. Not voting for one side because of a single issue, when the other side has dozens of issues, is accepting that you are ok with either outcome. So those who choose not to vote told the world that they didn't care either way, because they had a chance to impact the outcome and didn't.
You said "The party would rather have trump than abandon their only issue." The reality is, people would rather have Trump than vote against a single issue, and that's what happened. And that single issue is still an issue! It did nothing.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
People can't control the party, but they could impact the outcome and choose not to.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I think UBI would actually solve a lot of issues, the creative communities' financial struggle being one of them.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The cases where large companies do win won’t make news though. “Large companies settles with individual” isn’t really headline material now, is it?
Ok, and not every time a person wins there's a headline either, this is a moot point.
Also, small companies != people. Neither me nor you are a company and even small companies have significantly more resources available to them than someone who just created the next Lord of the Rings and didn’t see a penny.
So, what is your point? People can win against big companies, even over IP. It has been done before, if you want I can list a bunch for you. I just researched to make sure I wasn't off base. You don't always have to have the most money to win. You know why? Because of IP law, the very thing you want to destroy.
There are significantly more companies who would rather start killing politicians than see IP law gone. They rake in billions of shareholder value, much moreso than any AI company out there.
Ok, and? Because a company makes money due to X doesn't automatically make X a bad thing. I've not seen one good plan laid out on how destorying IP would help the common man, it doesn't.
I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.
No, but you are clearly implying something with "Copyright didn’t exist for millenia. It didn’t stop authors from writing books." This ignores that those authors couldn't have their work downloaded and spread across the globe in minutes. You are bringing this up to prove a point, but give how much things have changes over the last few hundred years, the point falls flat. It is irrelevant once you look at all the nuance and reasons why and how they were able to create.
What I am arguing is that these laws do not allow people to create intellectual works as people in the past were no less artistic than we are today - maybe even moreso.
They do allow them. They allow them to make money off of their art. Back in the day you didn't have an interconnected global economy, you didn't have to worry about retirement or your 401k, of course it was easier back then, late stage capitalism didn't set in. But IP laws are what protect creators these days, so they can take a year off of work and write a book and still be able to eat.
Have you seen the impact of IP law on science? It’s horrible. No researcher sees any money from their works - rather they must pay to lose their “rights” and have papers published. Scientific journals have hampered scientific progress and will continue to do so for as long as IP law remains. I would not be surprised if millions of needless deaths could have been prevented if only every medical researcher had access to research.
Yes, absolutely a good point. But because a system is broken is not a reason to get rid of it. The legal system is broken and millionaires just get away with crimes, should we just get rid of all the laws? No. We should work to make them better.
IP law serves solely large companies and independent artists see a couple of breadcrumbs.
Source needed. Because this is a bold claim, that based on what I can find, is not true. People sell IP to companies all the time, so yes they then benefit from it, but the creator of the IP gets paid.
You brought up how lives have probably been lost because of scientific journal IP. How many lives do you think will be lost when big pharma realizes there's no money in creating a vaccine for a new disease? Who is making that investment? The govt? lol
Abolishing IP law - or at the very least limiting it to a couple of years at most - would have hardly any impact on small artists. It would directly impart them! The small artist who had a good beat or came up with some slick lyrics would have them jacked. Every production company would be scrapping small artists looking for what they could take or steal, with 0 impact. This also goes with authors and writing books. How can they sign a book deal when a publisher can't guarantee it won't just get copied and given away? They now have no reason to pay authors.
They do not benefit from IP law - so why should we keep it for the top 0.1% of artists who do?
They ABOLUSTLY do benefit from it, you're just looking at it as a "less money needs less protection" lens which I highly disagree with. A small artist can have a lot going for them and miss their opportunity because they were stolen. Or they were sampled and never for paid but the person who sampled them got rich. I mean there are dozens of ways to see why this would be a problem. The least of which is, why even make music or movies anymore? If every movie and song ever created can be legally pirated, companies just stop making them.
IP laws help everyone. EVERYONE. Just because companies make money off of them doesn't make them bad. Just because small creators don't make a lot of money doesn't mean they shouldn't own what they create. Everyone in favor of this just seems to want stuff for free without realizing the impact of that choice, it's extremely shortsighted.
I never argued that copyright law is necessarily wrong or bad just because we went millenia without it.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yes, I have.
But how exactly does getting rid of IP laws since that exactly? Because that's what's being proposed.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Small companies have defend themselves from Apple. People make money from their inventions and writings. There are tons of examples. You're creating this idea of unbeatable huge corpos that isn't true. They don't always win, you can easily prove with with a 1 minute Google search.
They also don't want it just because of AI, this would enable them to steal and mass produce any IP anyone makes. This includes physical inventions.
Also copyright didn't exist for a long time and neither did the Internet or global trade. Times change. We went millennia without many things, it doesn't automatically make them wrong or bad. What a silly basis.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
This is a bad faith argument.
Forms of IP have existed for a long time. And back in your days you didn't have one company that could have global reach in second.
You still ignore the fact that if I spend 5 years of my life writing a book, it could be taken away with no money to me. So people can no longer dedicate their lives to creating when they have bills to pay.
Yes, and I think this is how it should be looked at. It is a hyper focused and tailored search engine. It can provide info, but the "doing" not as well.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
You seem sad
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
This is a horrible idea. Why would an author dedicate years of their life to a book only to make no money off of it. Why would I spend time and money prototyping a new invention only to not see a dime from it as a big company steals my idea.
People need to eat and live. If you can't survive by creating, you do something else instead of creating. How can people not see this very simple concept?
You could literally write the next Lord of the Rings and another company could print and sell the book, sell merch, and make a movie about it and you'd see 0 money. But no one would make movies any more because what's the point?
All these indie games disrupting the gaming industry, gone. Game dev takes a lot of time and money, guess big companies will be the only ones who can afford to do it. The indie guy trying to sell his game for 5$ will be buried by a company that steals it and dumps a few hundred K into it to make a better version and the original creator is left with nothing.
People think about getting an the stuff from companies for free and forget that big companies would benefit most with no protection to the little guy. There is a reason why the rich want to do this, honestly think about it.
IP only protects those who have the means to defend their IP in court, which is rich people and companies.
False. This shows a lack of knowledge around the topic. Off the top of my head I know a specific case where a small grocery store defended it's IP from Apple. In your world that wouldn't work. I mean how did JK Rowling go from a poor person with a story to a rich author. She had no money to defend her IP.
This take is just wrong. Factually.
As a consumer, you can download the book, listen to a free audiobook, or print it yourself if you want to. The company only gets money if they somehow make better physical version than what others have access to. To me this is not at all akin to ownership or theft.
So if you create a book or song or art piece, you shouldn't be entitled to the money that those make? They should just all be free? I mean sure, but then people will stop doing it, because of it doesn't make money people need to work to pay bills, they can't create.
You're missing how commerce works. A big company can flood the market. They can use better materials and ship faster due to being entrenched.
Like, hey, you could make an iPhone but will you? You can make a movie too, but will it be as good, you can make merch, but will it be as well designed and distributed?
Even in your example, where anyone can make a copy of the book, what about the author? They could pour years and their heart and soul into a book just to make no money, is that ok?
Big companies make money of Shakespeare and the Bible all the time. I don't know why you would think they don't, they very much do.
You're also mixing monopolies with IP. You can have a monopoly with or without IP.
Say you write a book.
A big company can take that book, print it and sell it without you seeing a dime. Then they can sell merch and make movies off your book without you seeing a dime.
It's pretty obvious, but people think IP only protects companies for some reason
What? They still sell things like merchandise and make money from it. You can make money selling Mickey Mouse hats if you don't own the IP. I feel like you don't understand the situation being presented.
You write a book. I make a copy and sell that exact book because I doesn't exist. I just made money off your book. It's that easy.
I'm brain washed? Lol, ok, since you want to make this about the people in the argument and not the topic itself fine, but it's still worth pointing out how you're wrong.
You came across as an I'm 13, and this is a deep post. I get it. You hate rich people; we all do, but you clearly have no idea how IP laws work, thinking it's just the guy with the most money running around stealing stuff lol. You have some fantasy in your head where if we open everything up it'll be all better. Ignoring the reality of how laws and lobbying worry, ignoring how patents work, ignoring how you don't need millions to fight an IP case. I mean how did every famous author make money? They owned their own works. You are sorely misinformed about a topic you have more feelings about than facts.
if rich people are the only ones able to afford litigation to support their copyright
This is %100 not the case. Small mom and pop grocery stores have won cases against Apple. You're just making stuff up, and I'm brainwashed? lol
it might as well only exist for them
No. Fully no. There are tons of authors, artists, and inventors who have made money off their inventions. You live in some other reality where no one owns anything right now. What you're saying is they shouldn't have the sole rights to what they create, you want it to be even EASIER for the rich to take. Because right now, despite what your angsty self might think, that's not how it's happening. And what do we get? Oh, I can make my own iPhone now, wow, yah, I'll get right on that.
You are fighting FOR the rich at this point.
You need to take a breath, educate yourself, and speak on the topic once you know it better instead of ranting about how you feel and think it should be, all from a place of ignorance.
I agree and hope for this. A would were people create to express and no to survive.
Yes! Now this I can get behind. Companies aren't people!
So just discredit my point of view by labeling me as the enemy. Sounds like you're in a cult sir.