Do you think what is essentially “Oooh, I bet that upsets you” is conducive to good faith conversation? Or even just general pleasantness?
If I asked you “Are you lashing out from fear that you won’t survive the revolution?”, that would be unkind. It would come across as hostile, confrontational and I would be presupposing your own thoughts on society and your relation to it.
Instead, I’ll engage with you as close to your own terms as I’m able: Do you think your country’s intellectual property laws are fit for purpose?
Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.
But they are broken though, aren’t they? Like there aren’t any authors going “Oh gee, if I couldn’t guarantee the rights to my works for over half a century after I dead then I’d pack in this writing lark and go and work at the widget factory”.
You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.
We’re talking about revolution, not evolution. Legislation, not interpretation. I’m asking if you were told to rip out the laws and start again, what would you do? Is that not a more interesting conversation than explaining to me how case law works?
I mean if you want to play “I work in IP LOL Lefty snowflake tears” then sure. Do that. Hope you have a nice time with it. Seems boring though.
There is more to IP than just copyright. There are many inventors who would pack it in if they couldn’t guarantee patents for their products. I do lots of work for individuals and small and medium enterprises. Patents protect them from being infringed by large corporations. Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.
It’s not a far more interesting question to me because ultimately it’s not going to happen. When you spend too long theorycrafting instead of just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality you end up in bubbles like this agreeing with memes written by 14 year olds who have just discovered Marx.
Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.
Nobody is “schooling” anyone, friend. You brought up IP, I attempted to engage with you because I thought you wanted to talk about it. And now you’re crying about nobody can disagree with a “highly qualified professional” and have turned a request for you to share your thoughts and experience into a confrontation.
just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality
That’s literally what I’ve been trying to do. To get you to tell me what you think sensible policy is.
I think I’m upsetting you, so I’m going to disengage now. Hope your day gets better, mate.
I did share my thoughts and you just blatantly ignored them because you didn’t consider that real people and small businesses also benefit from intellectual property laws at the expense of corporations.
Sensible policy discussions don’t begin with nodding along to oversimplified memes.
Do you think what is essentially “Oooh, I bet that upsets you” is conducive to good faith conversation? Or even just general pleasantness?
If I asked you “Are you lashing out from fear that you won’t survive the revolution?”, that would be unkind. It would come across as hostile, confrontational and I would be presupposing your own thoughts on society and your relation to it.
Instead, I’ll engage with you as close to your own terms as I’m able: Do you think your country’s intellectual property laws are fit for purpose?
Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.
You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.
But they are broken though, aren’t they? Like there aren’t any authors going “Oh gee, if I couldn’t guarantee the rights to my works for over half a century after I dead then I’d pack in this writing lark and go and work at the widget factory”.
We’re talking about revolution, not evolution. Legislation, not interpretation. I’m asking if you were told to rip out the laws and start again, what would you do? Is that not a more interesting conversation than explaining to me how case law works?
I mean if you want to play “I work in IP LOL Lefty snowflake tears” then sure. Do that. Hope you have a nice time with it. Seems boring though.
There is more to IP than just copyright. There are many inventors who would pack it in if they couldn’t guarantee patents for their products. I do lots of work for individuals and small and medium enterprises. Patents protect them from being infringed by large corporations. Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.
It’s not a far more interesting question to me because ultimately it’s not going to happen. When you spend too long theorycrafting instead of just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality you end up in bubbles like this agreeing with memes written by 14 year olds who have just discovered Marx.
Nobody is “schooling” anyone, friend. You brought up IP, I attempted to engage with you because I thought you wanted to talk about it. And now you’re crying about nobody can disagree with a “highly qualified professional” and have turned a request for you to share your thoughts and experience into a confrontation.
That’s literally what I’ve been trying to do. To get you to tell me what you think sensible policy is.
I think I’m upsetting you, so I’m going to disengage now. Hope your day gets better, mate.
I did share my thoughts and you just blatantly ignored them because you didn’t consider that real people and small businesses also benefit from intellectual property laws at the expense of corporations.
Sensible policy discussions don’t begin with nodding along to oversimplified memes.