Technology

59174 readers

2187 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1722

Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing" (pluralistic.net)

submitted 11 months ago by kpw@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world

467 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] TootGuitar@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly, "intellectual property" doesn't exist. It's a term that was created to try to lump together various unrelated government-granted rights: trademark, copyright, patents, etc. They're all different, and the only thing they have in common is that they're all rights granted by the government. None of them is property though. That was just a clever term made up by a clever lobbyist to convince people to think of them as property, rather than government-granted rights related to the copying of ideas. Property is well-understood, limited government-granted rights to control the copying of ideas is less well understood. If the lobbyists can get people to think of "intellectual property" they've won the framing of the issue.