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

  • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So it’s just a classic case of someone saying something entirely unrepresentative of what they actually mean, then arguing it to death…?

      • TootGuitar@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Could we stop having this meta-debate about what a person who is not either of us meant, and instead could you comment on the substance of my post?