Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Plains-Cow]

That's not a copyright violation, unless you publish the recipe and sell it online or in print. It's similar to quoting another author's work in your book -- if you attribute the quote to the previous author, it's okay. So go ahead and copy that recipe for your grandmother to try out.

Many books forbid copying in part, even for personal use, without explicit consent. Would you feel the same about copying a song to listen to? Or a movie?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Imagine you're an author. You write a book and then someone copies it and prints their own copy.

Takes a long time to write a reasonable sized book or novel.

And the irony is, the people who think intellectual property is theft would have no objection to that scenario, even though it involves the original author putting in hundreds or thousands of hours of uncompensated labor and a rent-seeker who did nothing stealing the work and profiting from it.

 

[Lexicus]

Hey can we have human rights?
No, we have human rights at home.

Human rights at home:

Keep coping and seething over the two Red Scares.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree, especially the part about owning more than you can use. It's a (losing) argument with my wife every week or so. There's two of us -- do we really need 31 coffee cups and five different sets of dishes?

Coffee cups are pretty far down on the list of things I'm concerned about concentrated ownership of.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

>He doesn't realise that his bosses underpaid him for his labour

Did they?

He agreed with his bosses on fair compensation.

 

[Evie]

Fun fact: Recipes are not covered by copyright. At all. It'S actually a well known point of copyright, and it's why so many recipe blogs feel the need to have long-winded essays on why they like this food, where they discovered it, their personal experience with it, etc, interspersed with the recipe ; and why cookbooks have lavish photos to go with the recipe: because legally, you cannot copyright the recipe, so if all you give is the actual factual instructions (ingredient lists and steps to follow) then you have nothing to copyright under any legal system of copyright.

If the recipe is a whole new invention that no one has ever done before (good luck proving that) it might be subject to patent; otherwise there's just no intellectual property applicable to the recipe.

Doesn't mean they won't put up "don't copy this" notice. It just means it's not a legally enforceable copyright. At best they might try and claim that it's a contractual clause between them and the buyer (which is not intellectual property at all), and which might even then be a hard sell in the courts. But then, the point isn't legal enforcement. It's scaring people who don't know the law.

 

[Igaryd]

What do you think about copyright, and would you feel morally guilty about copying a book? What about copying a recipe from a book to give to your grandmother to try?

That once the creator dies the copywrite dies Given that most recipes have been around for more than a century They no longer qualify. I suspect my wife and I have cook that are older than many of the posters here.

 

[Igaryd]

I can't access the article. Is this written by him in Guantanamo, or is this written about him by someone else?

You see two names the first is the one time detainee now freed for nearly a decade, the other is his ghost writer.

 

[Igaryd]

We’ve gotta exchange notes .

The Hay’s Code didn't lead to the result of dissenting filmmakers into the gulags and/or being ostracized from society. See my previous post on what happened to Margarita Barskaia and Aleksandr.

The man's retired and it's not like @Igaryd worked in retail his entire life. If he were underpaid for his work, he'd apply to another company that offer's better pay and benefits. I know the ridiculous statement of "Muh bosses underpaid me for my labor" would apply to me, and I'd counter with an eyeroll. The supervisors on the factory floor don't go around taking a $20 out of my wallet when I'm observing a CNC machine while it's running nor do the manager of my department goes out of his way to payroll to cut my pay. I feel that the company and my bosses are paying me at a decent level (I'm still a neophyte in my trade and it's expected that I'd be paid less compared to someone who has 20+ years of experience in the trade) with benefits. So no, the bosses don't underpay me for my work and I'm sure Igaryd would feel the same way when he was active in the workforce.

Interest after working as a teacher for a year a job in which I was grossly under paid by the state - I took a 12 dollar cut in take home pay to quit going to school and start teaching it - I became a machinist trainee and eventually learned to program CNC Lathes. Health issues took me out of the game early and because of that the government chose to rob me of some of my retirement,

 

[Evie]

That once the creator dies the copywrite dies Given that most recipes have been around for more than a century They no longer qualify. I suspect my wife and I have cook that are older than many of the posters here.

I mean, precisely none of that is true: you cannot copyright the recipe itself (or any other instruction set or factual list), only your presentation thereof, and only if you put in sufficient work to make it original (in which case, it doesn't matter how old the recipe is) ; so they never qualified at all (and therefore cannot "no longer qualify"), and even if copyright did exist, death of the creator would have nothing to do with it.

 

[Igaryd]

Well i've never had a bureaucrat set covetous eyes on my toothbrush either



Well, some bureaucrats decided they were anyway.

Well actually they said they were and claimed they were. Let this be a lesson to you about claiming responsibility for illicit acts on line. People with a lot of time money and guns may take exception and come hunting your ass.

 

[Joij21]

In a fully communist future we won't need it, we'll realize insane productivity gains from the free sharing of technical and operational information.

Except not everyone likes one another, humans are aggressive, greedy, and selfish. Not to mention racist, sexist, thinks the other guy is too mean, rubbed him the wrong way, must seek vengeance, etc. Won't share with someone they think looks ugly, is a creep, cringe, too smelly, etc. Feel entitled to sex after giving something to the opposite sex etc.

Knowledge hording would still become a thing from those that want to manipulate those around them under their heels.

 

[Igaryd]

I mean, precisely none of that is true: you cannot copyright the recipe itself (or any other instruction set or factual list), only your presentation thereof, and only if you put in sufficient work to make it original (in which case, it doesn't matter how old the recipe is) ; so they never qualified at all (and therefore cannot "no longer qualify"), and even if copyright did exist, death of the creator would have nothing to do with it.

I was asked two specific questions. The first was what I thought about copy write in general To which I responded once the creator dies so should the copy right. That is to all copyrights. the second was specific to recipes to which i replied that I thought that most recipes are simply too old to obtain a copy right Which as you pointed out would clearly place them in public domain as are most of the songs I sing some of which go back hundreds of years even if the arrangements I know are much more recent.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Hey can we have human rights?
No, we have human rights at home.

Human rights at home:

We have the inalienable human rights to cope and seethe, at least. Until those dastardly Commie SJW take them away too!

 

[Evie]

Except duration has nothing to do with recipe being in the public domain.

Recipes are not copyrighted because, no matter how new it is, you cannot copyright facts, nor can you copyright factual instructions (eg, the actual recipe).

Same reason that while a newspaper or journalist can cooyright their specific text describing a news stories, they cannot copyright any of the facts described therein. Crediting the journalist who broke the story is good practice and common courtesy (and covering your butt in case they made a mistake), not a copyright or IP requirement.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The first "Red Scare" in the US lasted three years 1917-1920 and was prompted by the Russian revolution of 1917. Then it went away. The second one began after WW2 as the Soviet Union put up the Iron Curtain"; Mao took over China and Korea was divided. It was led by Joe McCarthy and lasted from 1947-54. The wrongs were righted and "normalcy" re-imposed. Both were short-lived. McCarthyism is still remembered and serves as a deterrent to it happening again.

 

[Gorbles]

The first "Red Scare" in the US lasted three years 1917-1920 and was prompted by the Russian revolution of 1917. Then it went away. The second one began after WW2 as the Soviet Union put up the Iron Curtain"; Mao took over China and Korea was divided. It was led by Joe McCarthy and lasted from 1947-54. The wrongs were righted and "normalcy" re-imposed. Both were short-lived. McCarthyism is still remembered and serves as a deterrent to it happening again.

Given the rather ahistorical approach people still have to socialism alone, nevermind communism, it would suggest "normalcy" was never successfully re-imposed.

Which makes sense. Change is change (tautologically). It can't be pretended that things didn't happen. Things like the Hays Code, that @GenMarshall brought up, are evidence of that, and not the opposite. "communist sympathisers" was a category that existed well outside of the two times periods you're citing.

 

[GenMarshall]

...Things like the Hays Code, that @GenMarshall brought up...

It's actually NinjaCow who brought it up, not I.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Given the rather ahistorical approach people still have to socialism alone, nevermind communism, it would suggest "normalcy" was never successfully re-imposed.

Which makes sense. Change is change (tautologically). It can't be pretended that things didn't happen. Things like the Hays Code, that @GenMarshall brought up, are evidence of that, and not the opposite. "communist sympathisers" was a category that existed well outside of the two times periods you're citing.

There are always people who are against change and the people who advocate change. We have them today all across the political spectrum. They wax and wane in power. It is when such forces get control of the levers of power that we see serious oppression. That struggle is happening now in regards to LGBTQ and abortion rights. SCOTUS is now a force for the reactionary right. The Christian right has been ascendant too even though they are losing ground as far as winning converts.

 

[Gorbles]

It's actually NinjaCow who brought it up, not I.

You're right, my bad.

You made the claim that it didn't result in filmmakers and the like being ostracised from society. Which is factually incorrect.

There are always people who are against change and the people who advocate change. We have them today all across the political spectrum. They wax and wane in power. It is when such forces get control of the levers of power that we see serious oppression. That struggle is happening now in regards to LGBTQ and abortion rights. SCOTUS is now a force for the reactionary right. The Christian right has been ascendant too even though they are losing ground as far as winning converts.

And you had them with Red Scare advocates, the reach of whom extended far beyond McCarthyism.

What was, I ask again, the consequence of the Hollywood blacklists, exactly? This is what was originally being discussed. The whole "censorship of art" that is apparently unique to Soviet and other autocratic regimes.

Before it descended into the predictable "what does workable socialism look like" from posters that don't appear to introspect on the ills of capitalism one iota, anyhow.