• Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      So if an artist creates a piece of intellectual property, do you not think they should have control over how it’s used? Including who can make profit off of it?

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s an extremely vague question, and presumes that any art is de facto intellectual property.

        It also presumes that anyone has access to the institution that defines and enforces intellectual property.

        Also, intellectual property isn’t a real thing, but you don’t want to read too many words, so you’ll have to figure that out for yourself.

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In most if the modern world, copyright laws give automatic ownership of unique works of art. Legally IP is a real thing.

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Is it your intention to appeal to law? Here in the states, extrajudicial detention and torture by state actors is legal. Does that make it right?

            Do you think the copyright term of life + 70 years is fair to the public? Do you know how we got here?

            • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I think there’s room for improvement on copyright laws, but that’s a far cry from the outrageous claim that intellectual property isn’t a real thing.

              • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Infringement of IP is a crime according to specific states, but if you make art, and I replicate it, it doesn’t affect you.

                If you write a story and I read it without paying you, it doesn’t affect you.

                The only reason IP is a thing is because short-term monopolies on media (or inventions or methods) were enshrined by specific states as law, and then spread through trade agreements, and they were expanded on without concern for their original purpose or for the good of the public. In fact, we’re seeing fair use rights fade since states aren’t willing to enforce them, and platforms like YouTube over censor.

                So at this point, in the US, the EU and the eastern market, no IP law would be better than what we have.

                So no, you have not demonstrated any reason I should have respect for your IP.

                However, if you’re going to insist, and be an IP maximalist, there is one thing I can do for you /to you (or Sony, or Time Warner, or Disney) that is worse than pirating your product.

                And that, of course, is not pirating your product.

                • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You are thinking about IP with tunnel vision. You just want to gain entertainment for free. There’s more than that to IP laws. How would you like it if you made art that was then used in a manner that you philosophically disagree with. For example, Meghan Trainor had a song that was used against her will in a political campaign against same sex marriage, she was able to cease and desist this use because of IP laws.