IP thoughts 

The reason "Intellectual Property" is bad is because it is a term that (probably intentionally) conflates so many almost completely unrelated issues

If we're being trained to think that copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. are all the same thing, then you can make an argument that works for a small-time artist's creative works, and then do a switcheroo and suddenly we're talking about drug patents

THAT is what I mean when I say that "Intellectual Property" isn't real or needs to die


IP thoughts 

When I say, "Disney is a rent-seeking parasite and shouldn't be allowed to extend copyright another 20 years in Canada"

If you interpret that as me saying, "small artists should have no protection for their creative works at all"

Then you fell for this trick HARD

IP thoughts 

IP law benefits rights holders, not creators. Charles Dickens is going to die in poverty whether publishers are stealing from him with or without the support of the law

IP thoughts 

@bgcarlisle #copyright was never meant to "protect" artists, let alone poor ones. it's to create a #monopoly on the printing of specific works, to more easily regulate the flow of information. invidio.us/watch?v=H_aOHpn_vqQ

i would expect most 'small' artists can confirm to you that copyright doesn't really pay off for them. at least if they have looked into it and not just repeating the propaganda.

why would you think the state cares about artists, anyway?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.