I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the
intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed,
that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The
power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the
concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose
everything openly. This is ultimately the difference between proprietary
solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open
source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone. As the title
says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can
rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an
enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)
Hey mateys!
I made a post at /c/libertarianism about the abolition of IP. Maybe some of you will find it interesting.
Please answer in the other community so that all the knowledge is in one place and easier to discover.
I’m a fan of a copyright term similar to the original US copyright term. Fourteen years at the outset, with an additional seven (versus the 14) upon the payment of a fee scaled based on the revenue generated by a work (to be used to support artistic grants.) After all, if the argument is that copyright is necessary to protect artists’ economic interests, it follows that copyright holders wishing to extend should pay back into that system if they want to extend.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
I’m a fan of a copyright term similar to the original US copyright term. Fourteen years at the outset, with an additional seven (versus the 14) upon the payment of a fee scaled based on the revenue generated by a work (to be used to support artistic grants.) After all, if the argument is that copyright is necessary to protect artists’ economic interests, it follows that copyright holders wishing to extend should pay back into that system if they want to extend.
Honestly that sounds so much better than what we’ve currently got, a lifetime + 70 years.
You can thank Disney and Mickey Mouse for that one.