Topic: VOTE * Do you believe in "Intellectual Property" laws? - page 3. (Read 2321 times)

Commercial is one thing, but what about using it to get a degree, in form of plagiarism?
I oppose plagiarism and I think there should be some laws protecting intellectual property, but I also oppose abusing these laws to prosecute sharing of digital media.
It's stupid that a person can go to a friend and watch a movie with him at his house, or take that dvd, that he bought, and watch it at home, but cannot share it with someone in the internet.

Intellectual property is protected only in case if the person uses it for commercial purposes. I support the protection of intellectual property but on the other hand a lot of countries where people are very poor and they cannot afford to pay real money. On the other hand China in General is the king of plagiarism and provides fakes the whole world.

This absurdity is pumped by the lobbies but nobody seems to actually think it through and see if it is true. It is not.

Intellectual property laws stifle brilliant people and slow innovation dramatically.

When the focus is on capturing a small hill that you can 'own', nobody runs for the mountains.

It should be enough for people to reject the idea of intellectual property on purely ethical grounds, the immorality of a person pretending to own one idea that was derived from the ideas of others, or wanting to prevent others from free use of an idea.

 

It is very difficult to answer this sensitive question. If we give no importance to IP rights, then it will discourage brilliant people and there will be less and less innovation. But if it gets too strict, then a lot of poor people will be unable to afford medicines, technology, and entertainment.

I agree with this also!
I have first hand experience of this but on a very small scale.

about 10 years ago I came up with a little photography tool after creation and testing
I discovered someone else had patented something similar, not the same but had
factored in all manners of similar items which rendered my creation redundant while
this patent existed.

It was just a patent that was never brought to production but hampered the development
of my idea.

So in the big business world I can see how this could be a major source of frustration.

However I do agree with the concept of IP but as has been mentioned it needs updating.

Exactly, I can think of a few cases when Nvidia was just sitting on new developments and technologies, simply because their current tech was "good enough" and AMD couldn't do anything cause that technology was under patent.

IP seems necessary, but for example I don't think Mickey Mouse should be IP forever.

IP is a necessary evil, without it there will be little new research and development if everyone can freely steal your research and ideas. A lot of development costs a lot of money.

I do however believe it is in need of reform, particularly in certain fields where it does the opposite of fostering development it restricts it. For example patents that are held for the sole reason of preventing development or companies that buy patents simply to sue others for using something similar.

An article today about an American Chinese scientist who was accused of violating intellectual property laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/fbi-xi-xiaoxing.html

The FBI has always created a lot of crime when they should be doing the opposite.

In the 1950s the most powerful people in the U.S. saw communism as the biggest threat. Communism, by itself, is obviously not a real crime. It is an opinion, a belief. But it was the focus of the FBI for many years. In fact the number one financial contributor to the U.S. communist party in the 1950's was... the FBI. They had so many undercover agents pretending to be communists that they were its largest source of revenue.

Today one big "crime" they focus on is intellectual property. That is the main concern of the most powerful business lobbies, so laws were passed to convince people there is something called 'intellectual property rights' and if you make money from somebody else's intellectual property then you are a criminal. Those laws have been quietly expanding for decades.

Obviously restricting the use of ideas is not a path towards developing a country.

History http://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/intellectual_property/

Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

U.S. government / lobby sites
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tpp/ipe/enforcement/index.htm

 http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/

 http://www.phrma.org/advocacy/intellectual-property

Intellectual freedom sites

https://visionscarto.net/who-the-u-s-industrial-lobbies
"Each year, the United States Trade Representative issues ​the Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property (IP). This ​report, an essential tool in the US trade policy regarding intellectual property, puts pressure on countries that are deemed “not compliant” with the global regime of patents and copyright."

"It is largely influenced by five industrial lobby groups — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), ​Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Business Software Alliance​ (​BSA), International Intellectual Property Alliance​ (​IIPA), and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global IP Center (USCC)​ —, who submit comments to USTR, listing the countries they want to be scrutinized."

http://techrights.org/2017/02/15/cipu-lobbying-on-patents/