Intellectual Property Rights

[Gamma Male]

What is your opinion on Copyright, trademark, and patent laws? Should they exist at all? How far should they go? What should the encompass?


I think all copyright and trademark laws should be abolished, but that patent laws should remain the same. The reason I think so is because most of what copyright law encompasses(music, art, novels) requires little to no money or investments to pursue and can still be created very easily without financial incentive, nor should financial incentive even be the motivation behind the creation of art.

But when it comes to inventing and research, oftentimes large sums of money and investments are required for the field. Getting rid of patents would reduce the income of potential investors drastically and thus reduce the amount of money people are willing to spend on research and inventing, which would stifle scientific and technological progress.

[Lovelife090994]

Are you confused? Copyright is there to protect your ideas. I am an author writing a book. I want no one taking my work.

[Gamma Male]

Are you confused? Copyright is there to protect your ideas. I am an author writing a book. I want no one taking my work.

But can ideas really be owned? Does the government really have a right to make the spread of non harmful information illegal at all?

[phuckphace]

IP rights should end with the death of the creator.

[StoppingTime]

What is your opinion on Copyright, trademark, and patent laws? Should they exist at all? How far should they go? What should the encompass?


I think all copyright and trademark laws should be abolished, but that patent laws should remain the same. The reason I think so is because most of what copyright law encompasses(music, art, novels) requires little to no money or investments to pursue and can still be created very easily without financial incentive, nor should financial incentive even be the motivation behind the creation of art.

But when it comes to inventing and research, oftentimes large sums of money and investments are required for the field. Getting rid of patents would reduce the income of potential investors drastically and thus reduce the amount of money people are willing to spend on research and inventing, which would stifle scientific and technological progress.

I agree with you...to a point. I don't support the abolition of all copyrights/trademarks/etc, however, (at least in the US, and probably many other nations with which I'm less familiar) copyright law needs to be radically changed. It's ridiculous to me that copyrights can be held on text/graphics/movies/etc for upwards of 120 years, and all that does is prevent new ideas from being (legally) created. It stifles creativity at the expense of greedy copyright owners looking to monopolize on ideas and media that they probably didn't even come up with (for example, once an estate owns the copyrights after the author dies).



Are you confused? Copyright is there to protect your ideas. I am an author writing a book. I want no one taking my work.

If you, Lovelife, were to write and publish a book in the United States today, your work is protected for your entire life, plus 70 years after your death. Is that all really necessary?

[Lovelife090994]

I agree with you...to a point. I don't support the abolition of all copyrights/trademarks/etc, however, (at least in the US, and probably many other nations with which I'm less familiar) copyright law needs to be radically changed. It's ridiculous to me that copyrights can be held on text/graphics/movies/etc for upwards of 120 years, and all that does is prevent new ideas from being (legally) created. It stifles creativity at the expense of greedy copyright owners looking to monopolize on ideas and media that they probably didn't even come up with (for example, once an estate owns the copyrights after the author dies).





If you, Lovelife, were to write and publish a book in the United States today, your work is protected for your entire life, plus 70 years after your death. Is that all really necessary?

Yes!
It takes YEARS to write a book! I want no one stealing it or my characters and art. I write a book, publish it, and make money from it, I want it in my name. Copyright protects ideas from being stolen. You'll never understand until you give your heart into something.

But can ideas really be owned? Does the government really have a right to make the spread of non harmful information illegal at all?

In the world of art and literature, thievery is not tolerated or encouraged. Take away copyright and everything gets stolen and no one can own what they made. The government needs to do this because the person cannot protect their ideas. Your ideas are radical!

[WaffleSingSong]

I generally like the idea of copyright for a little bit, so that an creator of a copyrighted idea can gain a bit of profit. But after a certain amount of time, and not even when the one who had the copyright is dead, copyright should be lifted from something. What copyright does when it is extended for an extended period of time (I think copyright is usually lifted from something in the U.S after 120 years) all it does is makes the creative process come to a halt and makes corporate profit nice and secure.

In my opinion, copyright should be lifted from something 30-40 years after it is released. That way, people and businesses can have more time making that thing better in new creative ways while putting money into there own pockets instead of one person or corporation having a monopoly on the whole deal. If creator's don't like that idea, then too bad. It's the free market, and people should have the right to make ideas even better, I mean, other countries do that to the U.S as a nation all the time. Hell, were the lead exporter of good ideas! If there so afraid of losing credibility or profit of there product they should either make there "own" idea better or take there millions and leave.

[variantwarrior]

Um, another author here. I agree with the abolition of copyright laws. I've always had an issue with writers, musicians, and actors making large amounts of money. Ideas should always be free. Wasn't that originally the point of art, anyway? To spread ideas?

[Vlerchan]

Getting rid of patents would reduce the [return] ...
I tend to find that this is quite exaggerated:

Innovative firms would still reap the rewards from innovation: it would still be possible to gain supernormal profits (SNPs) in the short-term, firms having the headstart over its competitors. Firms just wouldn't be able to earn SNPs indefinitely: it would be in the medium- to long-term that firms, without their government-mandated monopoly, would face competition and see their profits reduced (alongside the prices that consumers might pay).

In order to continue to earn SNPs a firm would need to continue being innovative, and that's why I believe eliminating IPRs would actually be beneficial in regards to levels of innovation: firms would not just sit on their patents for large sums of their existence (see: Apple), but would have to keep innovating, i.e., keep seeking to offer better goods, in order to maintain a high profit margin: since shareholders, and other influential backers, like high profit margins, this would occur. It would create a more dynamic marketplace, and lead to a healthier economy.

---

edit:

I want no one taking my work.
Is it really your work though?: humans are social beings, and our own ideas are defined by the sum of the influences about us: each person, place, thing, contributed towards producing the ideas behind your work: you just brought it all together. It was still a collective effort, though.

I still think that you deserve recognition for bringing it all together, and that's why I'm against others claiming royalties on the profits your publications produce, but I don't believe you should have the right to stop others from using the ideas that were produced through a collective effort: it seems wrong to stop people building on some ideas (yours) and not others (the ones that inspired you).

Your publications would get some protection though: I don't believe I should just be allowed to ink "Vlerchan" in over your name and call it my own to sell on, because that's fraud, though otherwise it would be up to you protect your publications. I don't imagine lack of protection would stop people writing regardless: hundreds of articles/stories/etc. are uploaded onto the internet everyday and the authors have no interest in pursuing payment: people will still write and produce other forms of art because they enjoy engaging in the artform.