- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5646027
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/technology by /u/Logical_Welder3467 on 2025-04-13 23:19:24+00:00.
You must log in or register to comment.
The world would be better off without IP law, but I doubt these bozos know that includes trademark.
Fully agree with them. Literally for the first time and literally for not the same reason, because you know these assholes think only about themselves whereas I’m trying to think of what would be best for all. I understand why IP law partially in some form should exist, I also understand that currently IP law is abusive as fuck and only serves a very specific group of people, as always
If we got rid of IP law now, without changing anything else in society, it would massively reduce the ability to earn a living from creative work, making humanity that much duller.
I agree in the long run IP law sucks, but there’s so much in our society that needs to be fixed before killing IP law could do more good than harm.
Or would it?
“Remove all IP law so I can use it on AI, but my AI is still protected” is the feeling I get from this. The Poors ideas are open to companies, but companies are still safe from The Poors
Disney would like to know your location.
Oh no please don’t do it, it would own the libs too hard
So torrenting movies would be legal then. Great.
While on the surface I’m very tempted to say “broken clock”, it’s far more likely that their aim isn’t a gift to the commons, but to instead have the free reign to stomp out smaller players in the data harvesting space with raw monetary power through corporate espionage and hoard more data and create better AI models to replace more workers and cut costs.
I’m pretty sure the immediate goal is to make it so that real content and AI content have the same legal status. Their ultimate end game is likely to create new, more draconian IP law that will let them own the AI content. Possibly even give preference to AI created content.
That goes both ways….
Please do.
The problem isn’t IP laws, it’s how they are enforced. They need to be rewritten to help the little guy, not punish them.
Yeah, billionaires don’t want to get rid of IP out of the goodness of their heart.
So I can start my own social media company called “X”? Or my own electric car company called “Tesla”? I can copy the logos too?
Hell you can download the entire goddamn car!
Always.
Fine, but then also get rid of the DMCA
If they did away with IP laws entirely there would be no copyright basis for the DMCA to exist. Company branding would be up for grabs. Anyone could do literally anything with anything.
What Dorsey and Musk actually want is the ability for the wealthy to ignore the law but still have control over their stuff.
Universal Basic Income first.
No, thank you. Provide your own basic income. Life ain’t a charity. The population isn’t your subsidizer.
The population is subsidizing you. Everybody subsidizes everyone. That’s how society works.
UBI raises everyone’s standard of living, both in practice and in theory.
Joined 7 hours ago and only posts certified shit takes with inflammatory language. Get ratioed troll, lol
“Ratioed”? Are you 14? On a platform where votes don’t even matter of all places too.🤣 “Certified shit takes” = differing opinions in an echo chamber.
The population is already your subsidizer, even if you work and regardless of how much you make.
Hello Reddit!
Plenty of thing in life are achieved by people working for free in association and other things. Consumer and citizen association are working for a long time in history to makes everyone life better. Not everything can be ruled by economic insensitive. Some things dont generate money , like safety , laws , regulation , most of research and very niche technology. Some exceptionnaly rare disease wouldnt have any research advancement until some very rich kids get it , some technology for disabled , sick people wouldnt exist without being subsided.
Some book , art , tools wouldnt be created without some people being born from rich parents, because they wouldnt be able to do anything else than work otherwise. If you acknowledge that , you can understand that an universal salary would profite not only for the poorest , but also for everyone else , with more research, creation and devellopment being made by everyone and not only rich kid that got time and money.
Then it depend if you priority is to have a better society or to just increase inequality. Not for you to be richer , but for you to feel better about being slightly less poor than most.
I think it should. It fixes a lot of issues. There’s enough wealth out there that this concept could actually work. Any thriving nation should have a universal basic income to prevent all its citizens from succumbing to poverty. What’ do you think are the cons here?
The population is, just as much as you are the populations. The benefit of living in a society must be a two way street, but long gone are the days where honest work earns you an honest living.
UBI is a safety net for people that lose their jobs/can’t work. What are people supposed to do if no one is hiring? What are people supposed to do when companies lay off their workforce so shareholders can make more profits at the end of the year?
Besides, UBI is the bare minimum to keep a person alive. No one is buying their fifth yacht with UBI money (usually that comes from corporate welfare money).
More to the point, what are people supposed to do when all labor is automated and the 1% own all the robots?
At one point I felt similar to the person above. Tho I felt ubi was a bribe. As if to day we get things are bad so here’s some cash instead of solutions. I’ve since changed my mind on the matter. We need to be able to provide for people not corporations.
All UBI proposals I’ve seen don’t get anywhere near what you’d need to live off, and even worse, it’s sometimes sold as a way to gut other social programs. We definitely need to do something if we really are going into a world where AI is taking jobs, but it needs to be something better (maybe just provide free housing, and other basic necessities if AI can provide us with unlimited stuff anyway?).
But the way things are going, the billionaires just want to make their own personal wealth grow and don’t think what would happen to the rest of us in the future they’re imagining.
All UBI proposals I’ve seen don’t get anywhere near what you’d need to live off
Then they aren’t “UBI,” by definition. The “Basic” part means “enough to pay for basic necessities.”
About 163 million out of 340 million people work. The rest are subsidized.
Hell, the massively wealthy like Musk are propped up with corporate welfare.
What do you mean? Musk worked hard to get where he is. How easy do you think it is to steal emeralds from your father and pawn them to get seed money to start your own wealth? /s
Soon as corporations and “investors” provide their own wealth instead of extracting it from society.
Corporations and investors provide society with goods, services, jobs and innovation. What do bums who need “universal basic income” provide again?
In general, recipients of UBI end up in better employment positions than they had before receiving UBI. That means they pay more in taxes and contribute more to society. They also are in better health, which means those that were truly poor and on medicaid before, are no longer costing society as much in medical costs.
But keep licking that boot.
Is that why they need free land and government money so much?
“Need it”? They simply want it & they have the leverage to get it. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Same way I’ll gladly do a valuable person a favor, but won’t help a bum. I get nothing out of it.
Congrats, the rich have you convinced that your only value is helping them get rich under the guise that anyone who doesn’t is a bum, which is designed to make you feel like a big boy. Your utter lack of empathy is showing. You will never truly be a part of their club, they may tell you are, but the doors will never quite open for you, because in reality YOU are the bum to the rich.
I was lucky enough to be born to rich parents. Life’s not fair, sucks to suck I guess. Don’t have kids if you don’t have money, they’ll have a shitty life. Easy way to prevent the unfairness of life.
Christ. You sound indistinguishable from me when I was a 21 year old know-nothing piece of shit. Now I’m embarrassed for both of us.
You seem to have turned up just fine.
And yet they won’t “invest” without them. Curious.
Not shitting outside, and catching or dying from treatable diseases, and income tax if they get a job. If they don’t have to live outside, everyone benefits.
You know, you’d get it too. The population is the beneficiary. The subsidizer would be people like Musk and Dorsey. by taxing them.
I don’t need handouts. The subsidizer would be the populace through taxes, which doesn’t include only wealthy people. Also, just because you have a lot of money doesn’t mean you have an obligation to support bums.
I don’t need handouts
Want this also you?
I was lucky enough to be born to rich parents.
You already got your handouts.
I don’t need handouts.
said the kid who also mentions that his parents are rich… JFK get a clue dude
I don’t see the contradiction. Parents owe their kids a great life as they’re the ones who brought them into this world. People don’t owe strangers (bums) anything.
If anything you owe your parents for bringing you into the world and letting you be a freeloader for 18 years.
What an entitled dipshit.
Not universally true. In many cultures, children are owed very little by their parents and are seen as a workforce and economic component of the family. The more kids, the more farm hands, the more secure the family is. Happy to direct you to some reading and sources.
Thinking parents “owe” their kids is a privileged perspective based on material wealth and access, compared to the rest of the world; also in terms of the culture and society you lucked into that allows you agency to live a free life.
It’s not about empathy or kindness or any of that dumb shit.
It’s about the simple fact that capitalist economics can’t exist in perpetuity without an exploitable population, if most people are no longer able to work, push enough people to enough desperation and they will kill you if it keeps them warm, and there ain’t enough bullets in the world that’ll stop all of them.
On the other hand if you make sure the people have their bread, then one of them might become the nurse that’ll make you comfortable when you pass away, or a scientist that’ll cure you when you’re sick, or a techbro who’ll invent something that you’ll like, or a writer who’ll make a good show you’ll enjoy, or whatever, really.
If you’re a true egoist, you’re an altruist also. Libertarianism would’ve been cool, but it just isn’t actually possible, and people like Musk aren’t libertarians, no libertarian could argue against trans people because a true lolbert would know it’s people’s economics freedom all the same.
People like Musk are actual nazis who keep the wignaggery on the DL because it’s unpalatable. They’re not your friends, but collectively (rather than individually), humanity is your friend.
Libertarians are like house cats; completely convinced of their independent while being completely dependent on others.
You know why governments exist? Like, at their core? To take care of the fucking people living under them. It’s why village A stopped attacking village B, cuz they realized that, if they pooled their resources, they could defend against the fucking leopards and bears better. So yes, your taxes would go up. But you know what? Unless you’re actually rich, and not even like net worth of 3 million dollars or something, that ain’t even rich, but unless you’re RICH rich, you’ll get more throught that “handout” than you would pay in taxes. And the fact that it’d be funded through your taxes means it’s not even a handout to begin with! It’s a government SERVICE. The thing that made banding together in groups of more than a dozen people sound like a good idea in the first place.
Now, as for your point of having a lot of money not obligating you to support bums… well, first. Fuck you. You’re an asshole. And second, 50% of homeless people in the US are former foster kids that aged out of the system and have no support network. So I guess just fuck them, they get to die on the streets, right? Bad luck to not be born with wealthy parents. And historically, having a lot of money DID mean you had an obligation to support these so called “bums”. From the '40s to 1963, the top tax rates were ~90%. On the ultra wealthy. The Rockefellers and whatnots. Now it’s what? I dunno, 30%? That is, if you don’t use creative accounting and just make it .01%, which we all know is the typical practice. It’s not a handout, it’s making these rich beyond rich fucking assholes pay their fair share. But you can keep licking that boot, because, sure. Someday, YOU’LL make it. And when you have more money than you can possibly use in your great grandchildren’s lifetimes, it’ll be really important to you to keep some just turned 18 year old kid, who bounced around the foster system his whole life, and has no support system at all, out of housing. Good for you.
Considering the only way to amass that much wealth is by hoarding it away from those “bums”, I’d argue that they do have an obligation to support the population.
You are the worst kind of person, callous and completely lacking in empathy. You might not be the one who takes someone’s final breath directily, but you do cause the early death of many by denying society’s responsibility to care for the less fortunate.
I personally believe IP law should only be upheld against big corporations and not individual creators. Creating millions of profits off of someone else’s work is really unethical and I am strictly against it, but at the same time no idea should stay restricted only to its creator.
The current state seems to be that only big corporations have IP protections.
Most of the biggest channels on YouTube and TikTok are people who steal other folks content, and this has the tacit approval of the platforms (look at how YouTube handled Sssniperwolf versus jacksfilms. She just records herself laughing at TikToks, he called her out for not crediting folks, she showed up at his house and YouTube said ‘uh uh, seems like both sides are in the wrong here’ because they make buckets of money on her stolen content.)
YouTube figured out that you can’t host full movies, because Paramount can afford the lawyers. Small time content creators though - fuck them.
Similarly, look at how Facebook’s LLM was trained on Anna’s Archive. I use Anna’s, because I’m broke, but Facebook could afford to pay for those pdf’s legitimately. (I love how they also claimed that it was okay because they didn’t seed…)
Current IP law seems to only honor the IP of corporations.
Why only big companies? If I write book one of a series that gets super popular and I make some great lump of cash from it, why on earth should you get to write book two with my characters and world, picking up from where my story left off, even if you only make 20K from it, without having to get my approval and likely enter into some kind of deal?
