Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

Post by Guthur » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 7:37 AM UTC

the_af wrote: post #73

Guthur wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever. Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all…

An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 8:13 AM UTC

bscphil wrote: post #35

stonecraftwolf wrote: post #4

“IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” Doctorow never uses this word, but the dynamic he describes — where tech companies, rather than try to keep customers by offering good products, prefer to keep customers by making it impossible for them to leave — is fundamentally abusive. The entire essay is a detailed explanation of the ways that tech…

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 8:22 AM UTC

II2II wrote: post #17

kmeisthax wrote: post #7

Software copyright was an absolute mistake that fundamentally misunderstood the delicate balances between copyright owners, the market for creative works, and the public at large. I have no faith in Congress to fix it.

Keep in mind that copyright also enables free software. Without it, there would be no incentive to share source code since there would be no mechanism to stipulate that modified versions must be shared. That would significantly diminish the role of collaboration and significantly increase the role of opportunism. It is also worth noting that copyright increases the financial incentive to progress the state of the art…

Post by shadowprofile77 » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 8:33 AM UTC

NobodyNada wrote: post #19

onethought wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.

> Books do the same thing Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. The abuse is that DRM is be…

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 8:41 AM UTC

naringas wrote: post #6

what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property. how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?