Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Bestbank Tiger]

He even tried to "kill off" Pepe, if I recall, because of it, and that still didn't stop people (and doesn't stop people) from using Pepe or characters that are now derived from his likeness.

It's pretty much impossible to keep people from doctoring images and posting them online. Most you can do is declare it isn't canon.

But if the Trump campaign tries to sell Pepe merchandise, the original artist or whoever has the copyright should be able to say no.

Honkler is more of a gray area as he's a new creation but is also a derivative work. (Also makes it silly to kill Pepe off when he did as the redhats had already moved on.)

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shoe0nHead

She recently recanted a lot of her views in favour of being a “Social Democrat” (lol) but like she still has almost all those videos up where she says a bunch of reactionary crap up and monetised. If she was serious she would take them all down.

Any legitimate links, like videos or columns with her actual words?

Anyone can edit a wiki and anyone who puts "rational" in their title is difficult to take seriously. That's what people do when they want to shut down disagreement.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You're asking someone who want's a money less society. Even I'm having trouble wraping around how it can be feasible on a large scale where you need a medium of exchange of value.

This is what I've been saying for YEARS on TrekBBS to people who are into Star Trek and science fiction yet can't wrap their minds around the concept that every society more complex than a couple of dozen people in a band will need some kind of organized economy.

And even that small one needs some way to differentiate "mine" from "ours." I had to buy my dad his own glue gun because he kept trying to sneak off with mine - the one I bought to make some of the craft items I sold.

The people who grew up on TNG and the "Federation doesn't use money" nonsense can't seem to understand that even the magic replicator takes energy to run, so where does that come from? And what do people get out of it if they're the ones stuck with the unpleasant jobs - surely they don't just do it to "better themselves" (as Picard likes to put it).

 

[Gorbles]

Any legitimate links, like videos or columns with her actual words?

Anyone can edit a wiki and anyone who puts "rational" in their title is difficult to take seriously. That's what people do when they want to shut down disagreement.

It's a wiki. You could start with the citations? Which literally link to her words in a bunch of cases?

As for the name, well, they have a pretty self-aware page about it lol.

 

[NinjaCow64]

How you make money off your work in that society?

Well the idea is that you wouldn’t need to because its a moneyless society.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Like that sounds like a tautology but this is the way I see it - allowing artists to make money off of their own work is the only even slightly defensible aspect of IP to me. Lets assume a moneyless society (I think it is achievable, you may not be lets just assume it is for the sake of argument). In this moneyless society, there would be no legitimate justification for IP laws sans maybe something like a Creative Commons esque attribution requirement (so you couldn’t claim that you made something you didn’t).

 

[NinjaCow64]

Any legitimate links, like videos or columns with her actual words?

Anyone can edit a wiki and anyone who puts "rational" in their title is difficult to take seriously. That's what people do when they want to shut down disagreement.

As Gorbles said there’s a tonne of citations in the article.

 

[Lexicus]

Like that sounds like a tautology but this is the way I see it - allowing artists to make money off of their own work is the only even slightly defensible aspect of IP to me. Lets assume a moneyless society (I think it is achievable, you may not be lets just assume it is for the sake of argument). In this moneyless society, there would be no legitimate justification for IP laws sans maybe something like a Creative Commons esque attribution requirement (so you couldn’t claim that you made something you didn’t).

Fwiw i don't think communist society eschews money, it's too useful a tool. The point is not that there's no money, the point is that in communist society no one has to hawk their art to earn their bread, so the question of how people make a living from their art just doesn't come up. Your living is taken care of, you don't need to "make" it.

 

[Plains-Cow]

It's pretty much impossible to keep people from doctoring images and posting them online. Most you can do is declare it isn't canon.

But if the Trump campaign tries to sell Pepe merchandise, the original artist or whoever has the copyright should be able to say no.

Honkler is more of a gray area as he's a new creation but is also a derivative work. (Also makes it silly to kill Pepe off when he did as the redhats had already moved on.)

You know, there's a great irony in that people use the term "canon" unironically when talking about fictional stories when the term is so closely associated with Papal laws. Everyone can have their own "head canon," but I find it pretty funny that there's an understanding among some people that the first person to think up a fictional character can tell other people how this imaginary figure REALLY lives their life...

 

[Plains-Cow]

Like that sounds like a tautology but this is the way I see it - allowing artists to make money off of their own work is the only even slightly defensible aspect of IP to me. Lets assume a moneyless society (I think it is achievable, you may not be lets just assume it is for the sake of argument). In this moneyless society, there would be no legitimate justification for IP laws sans maybe something like a Creative Commons esque attribution requirement (so you couldn’t claim that you made something you didn’t).

There is nothing stopping anyone from making money off of selling their art in a society without IP. What people fear is that they can't be the next independently wealthy person by creating a fictional world, then riding the IP until they die if it becomes somewhat popular.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Fwiw i don't think communist society eschews money, it's too useful a tool. The point is not that there's no money, the point is that in communist society no one has to hawk their art to earn their bread, so the question of how people make a living from their art just doesn't come up. Your living is taken care of, you don't need to "make" it.

B-but my painting-based economy!

 

[NinjaCow64]

There is nothing stopping anyone from making money off of selling their art in a society without IP. What people fear is that they can't be the next independently wealthy person by creating a fictional world, then riding the IP until they die if it becomes somewhat popular.

Depends what you define by IP but I will agree that the current system sucks and values the massive megacorporations and the few artist millionaires over the common artist.

Also anyone who seriously wants to make money should find a different career than an artist. You’d have more luck buying a lotto ticket every day, lol.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Fwiw i don't think communist society eschews money, it's too useful a tool. The point is not that there's no money, the point is that in communist society no one has to hawk their art to earn their bread, so the question of how people make a living from their art just doesn't come up. Your living is taken care of, you don't need to "make" it.

Eh…I don’t have a strong opinion on this. I don’t think I will live to see full Communism implemented.

What I do know is that asking “how will artists make money in a moneyless society?” is a silly question lol.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Depends what you define by IP but I will agree that the current system sucks and values the massive megacorporations and the few artist millionaires over the common artist.

Also anyone who seriously wants to make money should find a different career than an artist. You’d have more luck buying a lotto ticket every day, lol.

I don't think that IP really exists. The only way to keep any thought "only yours" as a guarantee is to simply never talk about it with anyone.

Also, the corporations (and society's IP supporters) love to tout the millionaire artist as a posterchild to aspire to, though the corporate systems that surround and enable their millions via IP laws benefit far more than the artist does off making them into their "famous" artist figure. It's the carrot that gets people to play along with the idea that you can own a thought.

 

[Narz]

Well the idea is that you wouldn’t need to because its a moneyless society.

Which works how?

Fwiw i don't think communist society eschews money, it's too useful a tool. The point is not that there's no money, the point is that in communist society no one has to hawk their art to earn their bread, so the question of how people make a living from their art just doesn't come up. Your living is taken care of, you don't need to "make" it.

What if you want more than just some government bread?

That sounds like UBI not communism

 

[Lexicus]

What if you want more than just some government bread?

fig·ure of speech
noun
a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

I will expect you to Venmo me some money which I just earned by teaching you something, so I can get some caviar to go with my government bread.

 

[Joij21]

This is an incredibly misanthropic view of the world. Do you really think everyone who “can’t hack it” under capitalism, everyone whose art is unsuccessful, everyone who is poor is “deficient”? Do you really think that everyone was given equal opportunity to succeed in life?

No but there is such a thing as real ineptitude. While capitalism may negatively effect some people's abilities to perform well it cannot suffice to explain all.

With the sheer mass of people who post books on Amazon, there are simply too many for all to have been negatively oppressed by capitalism this bad that the majority of their writing skills are complete garbage.

 

[Narz]

fig·ure of speech
noun
a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

I will expect you to Venmo me some money which I just earned by teaching you something, so I can get some caviar to go with my government bread.

Sure, but I'm having some issues with venmo rn, just send me $10 first so I can make sure I'm sending to the right person.

 

[Gorbles]

That sounds like UBI not communism

Wow that's wild it's almost sounds like there's a relationship between the two things.

 

[Narz]

Wow that's wild it's almost sounds like there's a relationship between the two things.

Wanting a basic safety net =/ communism (well unless you listen to right-wing talk radio/podcasts)