Thread

Replies (74)

omg. It’s 6am and you’re still going on about this. at least the creators work wasn’t stolen even if the pay and royalty is bad, they are able to establish their name and likeness on their owns terms and timeline and have proper credit attributed for their contributions and work. and also opportunity to seek and negotiate a better deal. those opportunities and deals can even seek and follow them.💋🦁💋 image
🛡️
↩ replying to npub1955u...tgl7
The system we have today is the one where artists and original creators get next to nothing and studios, lawyers, and publishers get practically everything and manage to retain ownership of work they didn’t create and invention they didn’t invent basically indefinitely. Maybe consider that the law that you *believe* protects them, doesn’t actually do that, when the real world results suggest that the creators aren’t who the law benefits. 🤔
🛡️
↩ replying to Deleted Account
And what if the laws are self contradictory? If I come up with a cool idea for a new tool, and then someone else takes their own resources, time, and energy to build a similar tool, then there is no way I’m NOT the one who is horribly immoral by sending armed thugs to their property, and destroying and stealing the results of their work. You cannot own an idea. The very purpose of an idea is to share and communicate it. And everyone is richer for it. This is the entire idea behind open source and why it remains so successful and such a foundational part of the digital economy. And all you need is contract law. You do not need copyright law in order for something that is like copyright in practice to naturally emerge within networks. Either way I agree, radical change is needed to the structure of laws around intellectual property. I say this as a filmmaker, storyteller, and media creator. There are many more models than, “send government goons to attack anyone who copies my work or uses my ideas for their benefit.”
🛡️
↩ replying to Deleted Account
This kinda tells me you have no argument, or at least this is the most empty and meaningless thing you’ve responded with so far. “Open source is your religion” following my simple, truthful statement is so wildly out of context it’s crazy. I said open source is a significant part of the foundation of the digital economy, because it factually is. Your response shows a greater indication that you are hiding some sort of ideological bias than myself by far. Because you can’t handle a simple statement about it without making the wild leap to implying that “you’re in a cult and I’m ‘the science.’”
↩ replying to Guy Swann
Ok, so still don’t have too much time to go into this, but IP laws have been around a long time, with the first showing up with the Greeks and Romans and even the Egyptians. The Greeks established their original IP laws over recipes! No joke. A person with a proprietary recipe was granted Intellectual Property Rights over their recipe in this instance for a period of a year. I can’t remember exactly what the Roman’s used them for, I need to look it up, the Egyptians used them for art- mainly pottery. These civilizations and the civilizations since have recognized that human creativity is a bedrock of a thriving society and that creativity needs to be protected to thrive. Americans did wage a war with England over IP laws when they wanted to establish themselves as an industrial power- you can do the research there, so IP theft is also deep in our roots, but once it was all sorted out, America became a sort of IP law superpower. Here we are today. The current push by a very few to diss these is a push for themselves to make more money and have more power. They want to avoid the lawsuits on the backend with AI applications, etc. it is an affront to democratic process, personal agency and consent. Laws can be tweaked if they are not truly benefiting creators and this is not that. Following proper IP protocol hardly impedes creativity- only profitability. You are easily able to use snippets of any song while having fun mixing in your basement… only when you want to publish that song for your own profit must you consider it. There is much more to say, but not enough time to say it today. These efforts by these evil actors will eventually if not immediately be futile. The human spirit has always and will always prevail. Be well.
↩ replying to MoneRogue
True. Blockchain allows permanent storage of data that can be transmitted everywhere, but that's probably overkill for most people to use when they can just do nostr, unless there's a usecase I'm missing. It would make sure you reach everyone to see hey, this is clearly me and this mark is associated with this public key. However you can verify that it's you with just regular ass asymmetric encryption and relays or other services for that purpose.
A world 🌎🌏🌍 full of *UNORIGINAL* CHEAP Copycats???? NO, i don’t think so! Yet another BRILLIANT & GENIUS idea💡by the 48 Years Old IRRESPONSIBLE Emotionally & MATURITY STUNTED ManCHILD @jack *RESPONSIBLE* for *RUINING* his country with TERRIBLE, COLOSSAL Business Decision MISTAKE and HORRIBLE Taste in people!! 😡😡😡😡😡😡 View quoted note →
IP law can feel like a bloated mess, stifling innovation more than sparking it. The system’s often just a playground for big corps to flex their legal muscle, not a tool to empower creators. A complete overhaul—or yeah, maybe even "deleting" the outdated bits—could free up so much creativity and progress.
Good. Controversial take: I'd delete all data protection laws as well. The government should not tell people how to handle data, but companies should make it clear in their policies. Startups or side projects would be much easier to realize in Europe if you don't have to go through thousands of clearances to store something the user gives you voluntarily. If you give someone your data and don't anonymize or encrypt it, it's your fault. The internet is literally like shouting out stuff into the world. There is no right to delete information from space after they are broadcast, much like you can't just snap your fingers and expect your mistakes to be erased. View quoted note →
So Tidal don’t have to pay artists? Sounds like a move streaming companies would do… ok I don’t think your as horrible as Daniel Elk (who isn’t even a real elk ffs) but if there’s a way to not pay people for their art, he’s gonna use it.
People are so used to being robbed blind by the state that they have 0 desire left for any kind of "charity" (unless it involves the state giving them a break on the robbery). That case of mass-scale Stockholm syndrome insanity brings about the mistaken argument that value for value wouldn't work.
jack's avatar jack
delete all IP law
View quoted note →
Patents are meant to protect innovation, but often they do more harm than good. In 2011, Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion to shield Android from lawsuits by Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle. Once the job was done, it sold Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. Motorola’s innovation legacy was never revived. And out of 17,000 patents, only 18 were used. The rest just sat there. Meanwhile, companies like Qualcomm and Samsung faced 9,423 IP rejections. The unused patents blocked progress in the telco industry. For smaller players, innovation becomes expensive or impossible due to licensing fees or legal risks. Patents create dominant players who control entire markets. They block competition and stall progress. Even something as small as a connector design can shut out small builders. And if those patents are buried in some corporate junk drawer, they can hold back entire industries. China does the opposite. Although the maker culture started in the U.S., it thrives in China. Cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou are global prototyping hubs where entrepreneurs build custom devices with low friction and high creativity. In the U.S. the models are operating out of fear and protectionism. If the U.S. wants to compete, it needs to let creativity, imagination, and innovation thrive without drama. The irony is not lost on me that one system empowers its people to build freely, the other seems to question their ability to innovate. Before Tesla came about, GM and Ford were early movers in the EV industry but could not scale so they halted it. A few years later, Elon comes around, he understood that a fast-growing EV ecosystem would benefit everyone. A global hardware supply chain cannot thrive with one player alone. By open-sourcing Tesla's patents, he flipped the traditional approach, built the ecosystem, and ultimately led the market. Can Open Source Win? It already has. Jack and Elon prove it everyday. So do other billion-dollar open-source companies like Red Hat, MongoDB, and Redis Labs who hold it on their own as they go against big tech players Oracle, Microsoft, and Google. The power of open communities and network effects is real. If the U.S. wants an innovation-driven economy, it has to let go of the fear of being copied. Hoarding IP has slowed it down. Sharing might just move it forward. View quoted note →
Hey Jack, how are Indigenous people protected from having their IP taken and profited from by non Indigenous people, corporations etc? The classic example is people selling art that is called ‘Indigenous’ and the artists are not Indigenous and maybe now not even a person, just an AI? In these kind of examples, the Indigenous folks are not able to earn profit from the value they have provided? I understand IP law is not effective, so what recourse do Indigenous people have?