Recent searches
Search options
"...the German publishing giant Axel Springer...is suing Eyeo, makers of Adblock Plus, on the grounds that changing HTML to block an ad creates a 'derivative work' of Axel Springer's web-pages:
[...]
"'IP' ('a law that lets me control how you use your own property') is a tempting solution to every problem, but ultimately, IP ends up magnifying the power of the already powerful..."
https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/29/faithful-user-agents/#hard-cases-make-bad-copyright-law
I've known for a while that Doctorow is critical of IP, and as a musician, I wondered about that position.
Now, seeing the ways that the tech industry is using IP law to control how people use media and software that we have paid for on our own computers really makes me start to rethink my stance on IP. I don't know what the answer is for artists, but it certainly can't be something that lets tech companies control users like this.
@reillypascal
I think that there should be some kind of legal copyright protections, but we need to look past capitalistic models of intellectual property.
One example: in Jewish law copyright protections are tied to keeping works in print: publishers get exclusive rights to a work so long as they are actually producing copies.
In capitalism IP is accumulated as capital for profit.
So what should be our goal for copyright, and how can we design a legal framework that will support those goals?
@reillypascal Keep in mind that he's also a writer, and he released most of his books as free downloads.
I have many, many, many issues with him and his views, but I'll give him that, he puts his money where his mouth is.
@miki oh I'm aware. I certainly don't want to get rid of all legal protection for artists' ownership of their work
My main takeaway is that what we have now is very much not working, and while I'm not sure what to do about that, if there's a problem it's good to know about it
@reillypascal @aredridel IP was a mistake. Heck it’s one of those times Thomas Jefferson and I see eye to eye (it is also an ironic position given his ownership of people… the one thing less disposed to that than an idea). But it’s a useful counterpoint for our current right-wing, corporatist approach to IP (thanks Mickey).
“It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
Radically copyleft position from the head of the US Patents office?