It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The end of ownership

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue


This effective gives the dead artist surviving family a meal ticket for life

And why should my widow not have one?

Why should my children not inherit my estate? Who the Devil are you to decide what start in life my children should have?

Of course intellectual-property law is abused by large corporations. They abuse artists, scientists and others they like to call ‘content producers’ too. The solution to this is to rewrite intellectual-property law to protect actual producers rather than copyright purchasers. One could do that by preventing the commercial transfer of IP rights but this would create a disincentive to producers of all kinds — publishers, film studios, drug companies, whoever — to get into the business anyway. This would be as bad for artists as eliminating copyright altogether.

It’s a vexed question and the solutions are not easy. I myself have campaigned against international IP laws that — for some time — prevented the legal manufacture and distribution of ‘generic’ HIV and other drugs by other parties besides the IP holders. An exception was eventually granted in this area under WTO rules.

That is the way to deal with the issue, not to penalize those of us who make the world a better and more beautiful place to live in for the rest of you. You talk as if every creative person was a multimillionaire. Most of us struggle to get by, while you and your kids download our stuff illegally and freely. Enjoy the work of our hands while we struggle. As I said earlier, a pox on that ungrateful, stingy attitude!


edit on 6/1/16 by Astyanax because: of IP issues.




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


pay particular attention to my closing remark

I did. You are just another of the multitudes who think they are entitled to a free lunch.

Society is a contract. You would like to renege on it and live at others’ expense. The best that can be said for that kind of outlook is that it has ancient roots in evolutionary biology. It is the philosophy of the virus.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Azureblue


This effective gives the dead artist surviving family a meal ticket for life

And why should my widow not have one?

Why should my children not inherit my estate? Who the Devil are you to decide what start in life my children should have?

Of course intellectual-property law is abused by large corporations. They abuse artists, scientists and others they like to call ‘content producers’ too. The solution to this is to rewrite intellectual-property law to protect actual producers rather than copyright purchasers. One could do that by preventing the commercial transfer of IP rights but this would create a disincentive to producers of all kinds — publishers, film studios, drug companies, whoever — to get into the business anyway. This would be as bad for artists as eliminating copyright altogether.

It’s a vexed question and the solutions are not easy. I myself have campaigned against international IP laws that — for some time — prevented the legal manufacture and distribution of ‘generic’ HIV and other drugs by other parties besides the IP holders. An exception was eventually granted in this area under WTO rules.

That is the way to deal with the issue, not to penalize those of us who make the world a better and more beautiful place to live in for the rest of you. You talk as if every creative person was a multimillionaire. Most of us struggle to get by, while you and your kids download our stuff illegally and freely. Enjoy the work of our hands while we struggle. As I said earlier, a pox on that ungrateful, stingy attitude!



thank you for your thoughts



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Treestyle
When is it ever preferable to rent vs. own? Sounds like less individual power and more communism.


There can certainly be massive advantages to the business model for both business and consumer. If you like to have the latest & greatest (car, software, whatever) then renting can make sense, swapping out every 6 months or year or whatever. If you have a short term or single-use need for something that would otherwise be a major investment, renting can absolutely make sense.

There are only two things that are always, always better to rent than own: boats and women.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

Of course intellectual-property law is abused by large corporations. They abuse artists, scientists and others they like to call ‘content producers’ too. The solution to this is to rewrite intellectual-property law to protect actual producers rather than copyright purchasers. One could do that by preventing the commercial transfer of IP rights but this would create a disincentive to producers of all kinds — publishers, film studios, drug companies, whoever — to get into the business anyway. This would be as bad for artists as eliminating copyright altogether.



You're absolutely right about it being a bad idea for the original IP holder.

The thing about IP is that the people who generate the idea are rarely the ones who actually produce the final product. Invented a cure for cancer? Fantastic. That cure isn't going to help anyone until a massive chunk of money has been spent. Any idea how much it costs to hire the engineers to design and test the production line for the wonder drug? Me neither. If someone came to me with an idea and I did have the money to put it into action, I certainly wouldn't do it without gaining some element of control over the IP, just to protect the investment.

The law is written to protect the person who comes up with the idea. Your IP is your IP - until you, through your own choice, sell it to someone else. It's slightly different if you're working for a company and you come up with something during the course of your work.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax





I did. You are just another of the multitudes who think they are entitled to a free lunch.

Society is a contract. You would like to renege on it and live at others’ expense.


Where did I say I want a free ride? Your comprehension skills are letting you down; my main beef was with the extension of copyright pushed by Disney to claw back what they lost to public domain.



Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that


You still have the same rights that you previously had. I'll repeat my main beef is having to pay "rent" under Gosseyns enlightened Utopia. Why should I not be given a choice to own an asset? Taking his idea to the next step say in your example...we would not be allowed to listen to your music when you performed it live - you would also charge us an extra fee for your amplification costs, or a fee to decode your music even after we paid the entrance.

How is my giving a house to my children , a hard asset any different than you giving your copyrights to your children. If my children dont maintain it they will lose rental income and asset value, your children get the same benefits, if they dont reissue your music well they dont make any further money. How am I a sponge? GET IT?

And BTW society is not a contract it is a social construct held together by laws, norms and expectations by implied and explicit agreement. Laws of contract have been around some time. I dont agree with the TPP that favours Large corporations, we all enjoy the benefits of drugs whose patents have expired, why should you get special consideration other than 50 years for copyright? Who is really being the leach here?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The world of today is a different world, with different technological possibilities. Back then there was no possibility to 3D print a house in less than 24h, no automation, no robotics, no fast and lightweight computers, no renewable energy technologies, etc... A new era, new possibilities, new goals.

The communist failures of the past century were the failures of state capitalism. While today we witness the failure of private capitalism. We have to change society step by step until the state becomes irrelevant, and technology becomes public property, without any need for a state.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Oh my god I LOVE YOU MORE AND MORE!

Just want you to know I've noticed you and think you're great and would hang out with you, too, without a doubt.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join