I'm not opposed to intellectual property because there's an argument for providing a limited time monopoly to the creators of works to provide incentive to make works public. Without any such incentive, it's entirely possible that the monetization structures for different works change, for example locking content behind restrictive systems that don't allow for personal use at all.

The key is "limited time". If you can't make your money back in 15 years, then maybe it's time to make a new thing? The idea that someone should own a thing you made after you're dead is stupid -- how exactly will that promote you to create new works? If you're dead, your creating days are over except for creating plant food out of your bones and organs.

I put my money where my mouth is, and the legal page of the graysonian ethic specifically lists that the book is put into the public domain or license after Creative Commons CC0 license after 15 years from the date of first publishing.

[–] Uriel238@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is noted by Karl Marx, the capitalist inevitably captures the government and its regulating departments so that the body of laws will be revised in their favor. Remember that the point of copyright laws in the Constitution of the United States, to promote science and the useful arts was killed when IP was extended. Every year that someone owns an idea is year that the rest of us does not.

I don't know the solution, but corruption of the temporary monopoly was inevitable.

[–] SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Power captures power. Money is a form of power, but there are many forms and the powerful tend to try to grab more power no matter the situation.

load more comments (16 replies)