An argument against IP

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

because LL's opinion is find the best design, copy it copy the packaging then come here and cry when you get sued for copyright infringement.

Where in Liberty Lounge is this stated?

Originally Posted by Diesel66

because LL's opinion is find the best design, copy it copy the packaging then come here and cry when you get sued for copyright infringement.

That part was a joke

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except the other guy spent years doing R&D to prefect it and you come around and steal his work. Without copyrights and patents, there would be no successful free market. Why risk all that time and energy when you know someone will sell an exact copy of your work

Patent and Copyright are not intrinsic rights. They are government-granted monopolies, granted for LIMITED time, in order to ENCOURAGE progress in science and art.

Patent and Copyright as they're currently implemented go entirely against their intended purpose. They're treated as intrinsic rights, the same as physical property rights. They last (in the case of patents) often beyond the useful life of the invention and (in the case of copyrights) 70 years past the author's death. That's not a temporary term. It's nearly two human lifetimes, and it gets extended by 20 years just about every 20 years. No work has entered the public domain since 1923, I think, unless the author has purposely released it. The obvious intent is to push for indefinite copyright protection. And it's used to STIFLE progress, by prosecuting anything that even appears to be vaguely similar. You can't even record a song or manufacture an invention without an army of attorneys combing though piles of rights claims and determining whether you owe money to a hundred different people.

And art (whether a painting, a song, a book, whatever) is not the same as creating material goods. The entire purpose of a work of art is to be shared and seen/heard. If you didn't want people to look at it or listen to it or read it, you would have kept it in your closet. And a work of art is a contribution to society's collective body of work. It is NOT an eternal revenue stream for you and 3 generations of your descendents.

cliffs: I'm all for temporary copyright and patent protection. I believe artists and inventors should be able to make a living from their work. But not indefinitely. And their descendents (who didn't create anything) shouldn't collect anything. And rights should be NON-TRANSFERABLE.