• IP laws don't magically make copies disappear

    If someone copies your work, The police doesn't suddenly show up at their door to arrest them. You, The creator, Have to find them and sue them, Which costs money. Most small artists already act like they aren't protected by IP law because in a way they aren't.

    I do think there should be a transition period from when the law is announced to when it starts taking effect (5~10 years) to allow creators time to adapt.

    More info here:
    youtu. Be/mnnYCJNhw7w
    https://c4sif. Org/wrongaboutip/

  • Copyright stifles creativity

    There is a reason why patents expire after 20 years. It is to stimulate inventors to invent new things rather than relying on the same old invention for their entire lives. In the same way, Copyright should last only 20 years, To stimulate artists to create new works of art. Instead, Under the current system, One can simply write one book or one song in their early 20s and live off of license fees for the rest of their lives, And also allows their descendants to live off their work for 70 years after their death.

  • Copyrights are just plain big headed and stupid.

    Because someone has an idea doesn't mean that from that point on no one else should EVER have that same idea, How selfish, Greedy, And ignorant. Just because you have an idea first doesn't mean YOU are going to be the ONLY one to have that idea out of billions of people, Get over yourselves.

  • Selling exclusivity to someone who is not a creator is immoral - sale of copyrights and patents should be illegal.

    I suggest that instead of letting entities amass copyright monopolies and become patent trolls- that instead we only let creators who hold IP rights make their IP public. A company might pay a creator so that their creation becomes public domain, But they cannot ever pay for exclusivity which should be no less than a felony as it undermines the very spirit of capitalism.

  • Ideas are not formed in a vacuum.

    Nothing is original, Everything is built upon from other things. Should automakers pay royalties to the person who first developed disk brakes? The person who developed disk brakes are only an alteration of pre-existing technology.

    Songwriters and filmmakers don’t realize that the works created are simply just alterations of something that already exists, You can frequently see and hear this in music that sounds similar to other music and movies that have reused plots from old outer limits episodes to make full length sci-fi movies and such.

    These so called “laws” have been pushed over on us by a wealthy industry in furtherance of making them wealthier. Earning a profit is not bad, Making laws to gouge people is. It wasn’t always this way, Walt Disney is huge culprit for extending IP laws on us, Disney will probably own the right to Mickey Mouse until the sun expands and burns up the earth.

    Human brains don’t just blink on and pop out something new and 100 percent original, We take everything around us and just reorganize it into something different.

    Physical property is the only thing that should be protected. These laws have run the cost of healthcare through the roof. They gouge people for entertainment and a host of other things. What good do they do. . . Just create monopolies and further the distance between the ultra wealthy and the working man.

    As far as fostering creativity this is a complete lie sold to you as you pay 30 bucks or more for two people to see a movie once at a theatre that is nothing more than super heros part 135, While Netflix with a much smaller budget has brought us MUCH more creative films that are much more entertaining for like 11 bucks a month, And their lineup is full of tv shows and movies that are originals and not old films, The same goes for Hulu and amazon. This is case and point to disprove this idea for the entertainment industry. Plus these days with technology so easily obtainable and artist can create great music with no need for any industry to back them up, Physical media is no longer needed for anything and high end editing software is available to most average people. For music We can see services skyrocket that allow access to huge libraries of songs like Apple and Google music etc while CD stores have been disappearing all over.

    The biggest lie when it comes to drug patents is that the company needs to recoup their investment costs, For drugs that actually work and aren’t just a variation of something so close just to extend a patent, They make all of that back so quickly it would astonish you.

  • IPs discourage competition/create unjust monopolies

    Intellectual property has led to the monopolization of thought, And the rise of censorship. It has given organizations the unjust privilege to claim someone else's work as their own simply for sharing vague similarities. Even musicians have been sued simply for having barely similar melodies in songs of entirely different content and message.

  • Yes, They stunt economic growth, Waste law resources, Also it isn't possible for someone to know that they are the creator of an idea.

    Intellectual property allows businesses to hold a monopoly on their ideas preventing others from adding on to or developing ideas similar to theirs. How much time is dedicated to settling intellectual property lawsuits that could be spent elsewhere? It is entirely possible for more than one person to come up with the same or similar idea, So if you're truly a defender of a intellectual property than wouldn't you say that it's wrong for one person to say that they are the sole creator of an idea?

  • YES! Abolish that worthless thing

    Making free world doesn't have to loose anything. God as a whole created world to use freely with ideas of oceans. Don't hurt any one with these meaningless policies. Last but not the least. . . . If these worthless policies tries to even exist. . . . Then mother Nature knows the ways to teach lesson to those who support worthless copyright policies

  • Intellectual Property Infringes On Actual Rights

    1) Property rights were created to prevent dangerous physical fights over physical objects that exist in limited quantities. Unlimited people can use an idea as many times as they want and, And it will never "run out". All the remaining arguments are irrelevant, But here they are.
    2) All inventions are discoveries. Scientific principles and mathematical formulae cannot be patented. Nor should they be. The universe already holds all the possible processes and configurations that we will discover and call our inventions, But we will never create them, And therefore can not own them. You may say that a person who digs gold out of the ground did not create it, And to answer that I would refer you to point #1 above. The gold does not belong to a person in a cosmic sense, Because the Universe does not care who found it and also that person who did will die some day. But as a practical matter, We agree to uphold property rights so that people don't kill each other all the time. This is not necessary with things that can be copied infinitely.

    3) It's not the state's job to try to incentivize lucrative activity. In effect, Patents, Trademarks, And copyrights don't create the possibility to earn money off of an idea, They only determine where that wealth will be concentrated. Without IP, All fictional characters created today would be like the public-domain mythic figures and the characters of Shakespeare. It would be the performer's job to create the most compelling version of the character, Like Frozen did with The Snow Queen fable. Which brings me to my last point. .

    4) Art would probably be a lot better without IP. Without it, If you created an amazing work of art, You would probably become middle or upper class at best because you'd get to do the speaking tour and probably be hired by some group that's found ways to monetize creativity in the no-IP world (Broadway is the tip of the iceberg).

    5) I don't know a lot about research and development but it's not clear that IP has helped discover great treatments or cures for disease. The most important advances in science seem to be fundamental things like mapping the human genome and I'm sure scientists who discover ways to accelerate discovery aren't going to be grabbing for the millions they could make when their ideas will help more people the more they invite free collaboration.

  • Ideas are fundamentally free.

    Ideas do not exist nor manifest in reality, They are but mere concepts, Information.

    It makes sense to be protected against someone stealing your car as your car actually exists and took labor and materials to be built and reproducing that car would require roughly the same labor and materials. Meanwhile replicating ideas are completely free as they do not exist in the real world.

    The cost of copying a digital media through the internet is limited only to the insignificantly small electrical energy required to operate the equipment responsible for the transport and duplication of the digital information.

    IP has the guise of protecting content creators from piracy, But ultimately it contributes mostly to hindering progress in society. Science is the vanguard of innovation it is because scientists are able to freely cite and iterate on their peers' works.

  • There is no reason to abolish these rights because, if a person came up with an idea, they should get credit for it.

    If your friend was to develop a product off of an idea that you originally had, wouldn't you be mad? Intellectual property rights give a person protection of their own ideas. Abolishing these rights gives credit where credit is not due. If you come up with an idea all on your own, you wouldn't want someone to steal that idea from you. Without these rights, that's exactly what would happen.

    Posted by: AmusingKareem
  • Intellectual property rights should not be abolished, because people's incomes may rely on them.

    Writers and other creators earn their living by stringing together words or other media forms to develop ideas, usually for a form of residual income. This is very different than a factory worker who sells their time in exchange for an hourly wage. Taking away intellectual property rights would be the same as stealing pay checks from traditionally employed individuals.

    Posted by: HelpfulKenneth84
  • I do not believe that intellectual property rights should be abolished so creativity is not limited.

    Abolishing intellectual property rights of individuals would severely cripple the creativity necessary for achievements in many different areas. Scientists would be afraid to research for fear of competitors stealing and profiting from their ideas. Artists would withhold their music, books, paintings, etc. from the world for fear of their works being duplicated and claimed as the work of others, to say nothing of the fear of not being fairly compensated.

    Posted by: ChildlikeLamar56
  • No, I do not think that intellectual property rights should be abolished, because the work of an individual or company is their work to own.

    When an artists brings something into the world through their own blood, sweat, and tears, they are putting an incredible amount of effort into creating something to share with others. It is morally wrong to take someone's work, and intellectual property rights are there to protect the creator of a piece. This is to prevent someone who did not go through the effort to create it, from taking all the credit for it.

    Posted by: R4yAnych
  • Intellectual property rights are critical to encouraging innovation and making sure creative people are fairly compensated, and should not be abolished.

    Intellectual property rights were established to encourage innovation by making sure people had an exclusive rights to their creations and, thus, could profit from them. They have served this purpose admirably for years. If intellectual property rights were abolished, creative people would not be able to secure compensation for their work, and fewer people would take up creative pursuits. This would have a terrible effect on the arts, culture, and innovation. People who do the hard work of producing creative works deserve to be compensated for that work, the same as anyone else.

    Posted by: PreciousMiguel78
  • No, because intellectual property rights are vital to innovation, and should never be abolished.

    It is not right to even consider abolishing intellectual property rights, because that person worked hard to come up with an idea or innovation. It is not right to not offer them protection from infringement on their idea. It is vital to our society that we continue to protect the intellectual property of the great minds.

    Posted by: M0r3Interior
  • Intellectual property rights should not be abolished.

    The protection of intellectual property rights is an important part of our economy. Intellectual property refers to ideas, copyright, trade secrets and other intangible items. If the people who conceive of these items are not allowed to reap the benefits of their work, then that removes the incentive in our economy for these people to create. For example, many of us reap the benefits of a person's patented process, it is only fair that the person who created it be monetarily rewarded.

    Posted by: Cen2I0rd
  • Intellectual property rights should be narrowed in some cases, but not abolished, because the financial incentive needs to remain in place.

    Robust conceptions of intellectual property rights have undermined much fair use and creative appropriation of media content in the digital era. But, the original purpose of copyright, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," remains important. Without the financial incentives promoted by at least some exclusivity of rights for content producers, creativity, especially on the part of small-scale producers, like freelance writers, is apt to suffer. Selective narrowing of intellectual property rights is important in the age of the Internet. But we must not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • No, there would be no incentive for innovation.

    Strip away a company's right to protect its ideas and the very company itself will cease to exist. Without intellectual property rights, companies who choose to innovate would spend more money and time securing their product. This would raise the cost of all products, and severely hamper the innovative spirit of America.

    Posted by: SpoiledKris
  • Intellectual property rights should be there, as it helps an organisation or person safeguard the most valuable asset from being exploited or misused by another person.

    Human intelligence and new ideas have a unique aspect that cannot be reproduced or copied. Organisations get a "property rights" agreement with the consent of the employee who is willing to give it, so there should not be any issues. Intellectual property is much more valuable than any other asset and getting rid of "intellectual property rights" provisions is equivalent to approving a crime.

    Posted by: AriannaF

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.