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.
Exactly this, most IP revenue comes from companies just either buying it from the original creator or hired people to make the IP that they never even had rights to
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: [email protected]
⚓ A community devoted to in-depth debate on topics concerning digital piracy, ethical problems, and legal advancements.
This hot take brought to you by someone with no intellectual property of their own, I guarantee it.
Most IP owners didn’t create what they have, but bought it off someone else. I have little pity for rich people.
Exactly this, most IP revenue comes from companies just either buying it from the original creator or hired people to make the IP that they never even had rights to
You really can’t imagine an artist that doesn’t buy into intellectual property, can you? It’s unfathomable to you.