Ok, so still don’t have too much time to go into this, but IP laws have been around a long time, with the first showing up with the Greeks and Romans and even the Egyptians. The Greeks established their original IP laws over recipes! No joke. A person with a proprietary recipe was granted Intellectual Property Rights over their recipe in this instance for a period of a year. I can’t remember exactly what the Roman’s used them for, I need to look it up, the Egyptians used them for art- mainly pottery. These civilizations and the civilizations since have recognized that human creativity is a bedrock of a thriving society and that creativity needs to be protected to thrive. Americans did wage a war with England over IP laws when they wanted to establish themselves as an industrial power- you can do the research there, so IP theft is also deep in our roots, but once it was all sorted out, America became a sort of IP law superpower. Here we are today. The current push by a very few to diss these is a push for themselves to make more money and have more power. They want to avoid the lawsuits on the backend with AI applications, etc. it is an affront to democratic process, personal agency and consent. Laws can be tweaked if they are not truly benefiting creators and this is not that. Following proper IP protocol hardly impedes creativity- only profitability. You are easily able to use snippets of any song while having fun mixing in your basement… only when you want to publish that song for your own profit must you consider it. There is much more to say, but not enough time to say it today. These efforts by these evil actors will eventually if not immediately be futile. The human spirit has always and will always prevail. Be well.

This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far.

“Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”

This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far.

“Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”

By the way, your statements immediately signal to me that you’re too emotional to be elucidating clearly on this subject. ;)

This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far.

“Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”

This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far.

“Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”

And what if the laws are self contradictory? If I come up with a cool idea for a new tool, and then someone else takes their own resources, time, and energy to build a similar tool, then there is no way I’m NOT the one who is horribly immoral by sending armed thugs to their property, and destroying and stealing the results of their work.

You cannot own an idea. The very purpose of an idea is to share and communicate it. And everyone is richer for it.

This is the entire idea behind open source and why it remains so successful and such a foundational part of the digital economy.

And all you need is contract law. You do not need copyright law in order for something that is like copyright in practice to naturally emerge within networks.

Either way I agree, radical change is needed to the structure of laws around intellectual property. I say this as a filmmaker, storyteller, and media creator.

There are many more models than, “send government goons to attack anyone who copies my work or uses my ideas for their benefit.”

delete all IP law

The system we have today is the one where artists and original creators get next to nothing and studios, lawyers, and publishers get practically everything and manage to retain ownership of work they didn’t create and invention they didn’t invent basically indefinitely.

Maybe consider that the law that you *believe* protects them, doesn’t actually do that, when the real world results suggest that the creators aren’t who the law benefits. 🤔