Post #1178726

2026-04-05 23:11 UTC

The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite. I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.

Replies (2)

@partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2026-04-07 00:52

> but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo. Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?

Open ##1178727
@sniggleboots@europe.pub 2026-04-06 14:29

I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn't be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work But then I realized that's pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I'm not a millionaire, and I'm not developing any revolutionary tech either

Open ##1178728