7 ms·

Let it collapse get rid of patents and copyright. They are holding us back. People will assume that means that you can copy and distribute for free and profit

by s_dev 16d ago

Let it collapse get rid of patents and copyright. They are holding us back. People will assume that means that you can copy and distribute for free and profit without work. You already can. The business model will have to shift to collecting money BEFORE making something rather than trying to collect it AFTER making. You want a new Christoper Nolan film on his new idea, invest in it. That investment is a risk. Once made the money is made people can copy and distribute however they like. In a cinema, on a DVD, on a streaming site etc. You've pointed it out yourself, we have these old notions of economics that we apply to a new world where it simply doesn't make sense.

jijijijij 16d ago
Every masterpiece or visionary work, which suffered late recognition is evidence against your proposal. If art is shaped by popular demand only, you will get nothing but the most comfortable, unchallenging, forgettable popculture fluff imaginable.
s1artibartfast 15d ago
Why would anyone want that model of consumption? It seems terrible. I don't want to invest in a director to make a movie I may or may not be interested in
fzeroracer 16d ago
In a world without patents and copyright, there's nothing stopping companies from just hiring the Pinkertons or something to threaten you into compliance. These sort of 'if we just get rid of patents things will be great' ideals will just benefit large corporations with the capital to get their way anyways. This doesn't mean our current system of patents and copyrights doesn't favor them either especially as they shred it to train their AI models but it's not a system you can fix by simply tearing it all down.
- izacus 16d ago
  That's just absolute nonsense, where do you get these kind of ideas? Just because you don't have monopoly on your stupid ideas, you don't get to hire Pinkerton's to beat others.
  - fzeroracer 16d ago
    It's not exactly an old thing. Wizards of the Coast hired the Pinkertons to seize cards and harass people extra-legally as recent at 2023. As I said, even if you remove the legal barriers preventing control over IP companies can and do operate on the fringe of or outside of the law to enforce it anyways.
    - iamnothere 16d ago
      If that were to happen on a large scale, people could band together to provide security/resistance. Since what you’re suggesting is a complete collapse of rule of law. If IP law is the only thing preventing society from descending into anarchy, then maybe we deserve anarchy.
      - deleted 16d ago
        [deleted]
      - bugbull 16d ago
        > If that were to happen on a large scale, people could band together to provide security/resistance. Oh wait. I’ve heard this one before. Just send in the national guard. A couple of well placed free speech donations with some winks and nods should be able to break that sort of terrorist organization.
        iamnothere 16d ago
        If you truly believe this and aren’t just spouting off, I hope you’re either making plans to move or gearing up for the inevitable civil conflict. Given your green account I’m sure you’re just trolling.
        bugbull 15d ago
        [dead]
        salawat 15d ago
philipov 16d ago
And this is precisely the business model that platforms like Patreon and Kickstarter facilitate.
smcg 16d ago
If you want to get rid of patents and copyright then entire industries would have to roll over and die (the music industry, publishing, Disney, etc). Also, people only invest in things if there is an expectation of profit. Your model for raising capital does not make sense.
- joquarky 15d ago
  > entire industries would have to roll over and die (the music industry, publishing, Disney, etc) I'm not seeing a downside here. They are all predatory.
- s_dev 10d ago
  It's how all hyperscalers and kickstarter work so small and big companies. You raise based on an idea and a sample. Who invests? Those who want to see the product made i.e. instead of buying an album. You invest in a band who promises to make an album if they raise a certain amount otherwise refunds. Then you don't have to care about distribution as that's a solved problem. The band can still make more money doing festivals etc. The issue is as others have pointed out the vested interests in the status quo.
- markerz 16d ago
  Property rights are not the only way to create profit. That's a very capitalistic mindset. Plenty of societies have functioned adequately without our current form of property rights, either physical or intellectual. Before AI, it was the internet that really challenged intellectual property rights. When information flows freely, what happens? Example: many musicians make their pay by performing live, not from royalties on the properties they sold to producing companies. Intellectual property rights rewards the first-comers, not the innovators. For example, you give a drug researcher a patent on their discovery, that discourages innovation on making that new drug cheap and readily available. The same can be said about AI models: the heavy investments by OpenAI and Anthropic to make these frontier models forces them to charge pretty expensive prices, but if we only had them, we would not have much innovation in making fast tiny models that are more cost and energy efficient. That drive comes from China because they are resource constrained and price-conscious.
hatthew 16d ago
Investments need a return on investment. If "the thing you wanted to exist now does" is the only return, that's not enough to support anywhere near the current amount of digital product creation happening today.
- wewtyflakes 16d ago
  Sounds fine to me! Less inane, pointless, content? Only left with what people chose to exist? Sign me up!
- tavavex 16d ago
  It's almost impossible to predict how much demand there will be in that scenario because the world would be a very different place if that system was the default. And with things that are relatively cheap to make, such as professionally produced YouTube videos, people may only need to chip in a few cents to provide an equivalent return to ad revenue. Given that people are already accustomed to paying for the promise of future things existing in the form of crowdfunding, Patreon or most subscription services in general, I don't think it would as drastic of a difference as you imagine, as long as the infrastructure is there to facilitate effortless 'investing' into many small things.
- Der_Einzige 16d ago
  Good.

by s_dev 16d ago

jijijijij 16d ago

Every masterpiece or visionary work, which suffered late recognition is evidence against your proposal. If art is shaped by popular demand only, you will get nothing but the most comfortable, unchallenging, forgettable popculture fluff imaginable.

s1artibartfast 15d ago

Why would anyone want that model of consumption? It seems terrible. I don't want to invest in a director to make a movie I may or may not be interested in

fzeroracer 16d ago

In a world without patents and copyright, there's nothing stopping companies from just hiring the Pinkertons or something to threaten you into compliance. These sort of 'if we just get rid of patents things will be great' ideals will just benefit large corporations with the capital to get their way anyways. This doesn't mean our current system of patents and copyrights doesn't favor them either especially as they shred it to train their AI models but it's not a system you can fix by simply tearing it all down.

izacus 16d ago
That's just absolute nonsense, where do you get these kind of ideas? Just because you don't have monopoly on your stupid ideas, you don't get to hire Pinkerton's to beat others.
- fzeroracer 16d ago
  It's not exactly an old thing. Wizards of the Coast hired the Pinkertons to seize cards and harass people extra-legally as recent at 2023. As I said, even if you remove the legal barriers preventing control over IP companies can and do operate on the fringe of or outside of the law to enforce it anyways.
  - iamnothere 16d ago
    If that were to happen on a large scale, people could band together to provide security/resistance. Since what you’re suggesting is a complete collapse of rule of law. If IP law is the only thing preventing society from descending into anarchy, then maybe we deserve anarchy.
    - deleted 16d ago
      [deleted]
    - bugbull 16d ago
      > If that were to happen on a large scale, people could band together to provide security/resistance. Oh wait. I’ve heard this one before. Just send in the national guard. A couple of well placed free speech donations with some winks and nods should be able to break that sort of terrorist organization.
      - iamnothere 16d ago
        If you truly believe this and aren’t just spouting off, I hope you’re either making plans to move or gearing up for the inevitable civil conflict. Given your green account I’m sure you’re just trolling.
        bugbull 15d ago
        [dead]
        salawat 15d ago

philipov 16d ago

And this is precisely the business model that platforms like Patreon and Kickstarter facilitate.

smcg 16d ago

If you want to get rid of patents and copyright then entire industries would have to roll over and die (the music industry, publishing, Disney, etc). Also, people only invest in things if there is an expectation of profit. Your model for raising capital does not make sense.

joquarky 15d ago
> entire industries would have to roll over and die (the music industry, publishing, Disney, etc) I'm not seeing a downside here. They are all predatory.
s_dev 10d ago
It's how all hyperscalers and kickstarter work so small and big companies. You raise based on an idea and a sample. Who invests? Those who want to see the product made i.e. instead of buying an album. You invest in a band who promises to make an album if they raise a certain amount otherwise refunds. Then you don't have to care about distribution as that's a solved problem. The band can still make more money doing festivals etc. The issue is as others have pointed out the vested interests in the status quo.
markerz 16d ago
Property rights are not the only way to create profit. That's a very capitalistic mindset. Plenty of societies have functioned adequately without our current form of property rights, either physical or intellectual. Before AI, it was the internet that really challenged intellectual property rights. When information flows freely, what happens? Example: many musicians make their pay by performing live, not from royalties on the properties they sold to producing companies. Intellectual property rights rewards the first-comers, not the innovators. For example, you give a drug researcher a patent on their discovery, that discourages innovation on making that new drug cheap and readily available. The same can be said about AI models: the heavy investments by OpenAI and Anthropic to make these frontier models forces them to charge pretty expensive prices, but if we only had them, we would not have much innovation in making fast tiny models that are more cost and energy efficient. That drive comes from China because they are resource constrained and price-conscious.

hatthew 16d ago

Investments need a return on investment. If "the thing you wanted to exist now does" is the only return, that's not enough to support anywhere near the current amount of digital product creation happening today.

wewtyflakes 16d ago
Sounds fine to me! Less inane, pointless, content? Only left with what people chose to exist? Sign me up!
tavavex 16d ago
It's almost impossible to predict how much demand there will be in that scenario because the world would be a very different place if that system was the default. And with things that are relatively cheap to make, such as professionally produced YouTube videos, people may only need to chip in a few cents to provide an equivalent return to ad revenue. Given that people are already accustomed to paying for the promise of future things existing in the form of crowdfunding, Patreon or most subscription services in general, I don't think it would as drastic of a difference as you imagine, as long as the infrastructure is there to facilitate effortless 'investing' into many small things.
Der_Einzige 16d ago
Good.