Should intellectual property be abolished? (make all file sharing legal) (1 Viewer)

[vanush]

all the research on this matter has been performed by libertarian weirdos

 

[Enteebee]

So basically if you're selling the software, you're actually selling the medium it comes on, and lots of companies like Sun, IBM, Nokia, Google, etc generate revenue by adding 'value': advertisements, helpdesk support, a mobile phone, etc.

But of course these companies will be competing against cheaper rip offs by chinese manufacturers who don't pay the R&D costs, if we're going down the road of no IP at all.

 

[bigb0yjames]

noam chomsky for president of the world

 

[Enteebee]

... and they aren't now?

At which point do you acknowledge the absence of a horse when you're closing the barn door

They seem to think they're doing much better with patents.

 

[Trefoil]

They seem to think they're doing much better with patents.

Patents ARE NOT copyright. You should probably learn the difference before you try to argue a point about either one.

 

[Enteebee]

Again you dismiss me with this smug attitude. Get over yourself slidey.

- The topic of discussion is "Intellectual property", this I can assure you includes patents.

- I was clearly addressing problems with getting rid of Intellectual property, including patents.

But of course these companies will be competing against cheaper rip offs by chinese manufacturers who don't pay the R&D costs, if we're going down the road of no IP at all.

Now I'll take your point as implying that it's all good to get rid of one form of IP (copyright) and not another (patents). I'm not going to take a particular stance here but this might be of interest to you guys arguing over whether we should have intellectual property to discuss types of protections which you feel are necessary/valid.

 

[Trefoil]

Hey, NTB, here's an idea: actually bother to read my posts if you're going to try arguing with me.

If you did that, you might just manage to comprehend this post of mine at the start of the thread:

Personally I support taking copyright back to its original time period of 5 years (perhaps 10 at the absolute maximum) instead of the pathetic 75 years or so it is now.

Or perhaps this post by Graney later on:

I am willing to conceded that perhaps, a five or ten year at most, term of copyright is a reasonable idea.

Maybe instead of blindly defending a broken system and trying to paint us as 'radicals', you could actually have a sit and think about whether the current system is functioning optimally and as it was originally intended, or if reform is needed. Who knows - you might even then be able to participate intelligently in this discussion with us.

 

[katie tully]

Meow.

 

[Graney]

Eh, enteebee makes a fair point, completely abolishing intellectual property was the original proposition and I can't see a way around mitigating the harms that would cause to R&D globally. So there is a need for a limited period of patents at least. Ideally we need to find a way to force our asian neighbours to abide by these.

I'm open minded. I make these threads in the hope I will be refuted. I appreciate the criticism.

 

[Trefoil]

Eh, enteebee makes a fair point

No, he doesn't really, since he was responding to me, not you. It was absolutely naive of him to believe that I ascribe to exactly the same set of beliefs as you.

It's also weak of him to defend the current IP situation by contrasting it against an extreme (hello, strawman), but not even bother to consider the possibility of copyright reform (which is pretty evident by the fact that he cherry-picked a small part of my larger post).

 

[Enteebee]

Hey, NTB, here's an idea: actually bother to read my posts if you're going to try arguing with me.

If you did that, you might just manage to comprehend this post of mine at the start of the thread:



Or perhaps this post by Graney later on:



Maybe instead of blindly defending a broken system and trying to paint us as 'radicals', you could actually have a sit and think about whether the current system is functioning optimally and as it was originally intended, or if reform is needed. Who knows - you might even then be able to participate intelligently in this discussion with us.

I wasn't arguing with you until you decided to point out to me that patents are not copyright, which isn't something I was claiming at all. You were explaining how the software industry does fine without our current copyright laws... I was pointing out that this is less likely to be true without IP protections for hardware manufacturers. I wasn't trying to claim that you support getting rid of patents or anything else, I was just pointing out in the context of a thread about IP being eliminated that your point only works best with certain IP laws in place.

I haven't even said whether I support copyright in its current form or not, you've just presumed that.