Obviously IP would be abolished under socialism, but would you support getting rid of it as a reform under capitalism?
Intellectual property is a farce used to privatize and profit off of ideas that are used by society.
Intellectual property law under capitalism only serves to enrich large corporations at the expense of the artists who actually produce content.
If the question is whether or not intellectual property should exist while capitalism is the law of the land, yes, I think it is necessary in some limited form. Obviously drug patents can go out the window, but artistic creations should have some form of protection since they're especially vulnerable to plagiarism and tied directly to an artist's ability to feed themselves. In a perfect world plagiarism wouldn't matter, because all art would be created for pleasure and not for survival.
The problem with that logic is that it requires a clear definition of what is "artistic creation". Also, it would mean that massive companies like Disney would be able to enjoy IP protections while tech companies wouldnt. I think a wholesale elimination of IP laws with no conditions would be good
If it's a binary question of should there be intellectual property laws or shouldn't there be, then yes, for the sake of everyone with treatable illnesses I agree that it should be abolished. But if IP law can be changed, not just eliminated, then I'd say that there are instances in a capitalist system where protecting intellectual property is valuable. It doesn't have to be forever, and it doesn't have to apply to everyone, but IP
doescan help certain people. Look at what happened with Bill Watterson; I think that if someone wants to protect their creations from being grossly commoditized by complete strangers they should be able to.
IP is really there to protect powerful corporations instead of individual artists. Even then it shouldn't be that powerful because people should be able to take an existing idea and add their own touches.
If IP laws are abolished under capitalism, how would indie artists protect their way of earning a living? Furthermore, what would stop a big corporation (or anyone else) from simply grabbing work from an indie artist and using it for profit?
I mean things like making and selling posters and shirts bearing someone else's painting, or straight up republishing books written by others?
I think that indie artists can be supported through patreon-like systems. Their loss of revenue is nothing in comparison to the massive economic growth and poverty reduction that will result from poor countries being able to use advanced technology easily to rapidly modernize their economy.
As a libertarian, I think all software and IP should be open source but pay per viewing session. Sessions last 1hr by default but sick deals can be made on the side, if you're cool
Gut reaction is to say "get rid of it" but as it is now, this wouldn't help anybody who can't afford an army of lawyers.
