• AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate

    How is it not a point of debate? I’m giving you arguments as to why it’s a very good point of debate and you don’t seem to be able to respond to them.

    Virtually every country has an IP law

    Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that’s just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.

    IP law doesn’t make it so people won’t share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded

    I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the “publish-or-perish” system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants… IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you’re trying to argue.

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Everyone does it because every country works through the capitalist mode of production, not because it’s a necessity of production.

        How about you answer to the rest of my comment?