How to Unf★ck Intellectual Property

[@rabokarabekian409]

The thing free market capitalists hate most is truly free market capitalism.

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

bosses are one of the biggest enemies of the liberation of markets. even Milton Friedman understood this.

[@Aentium]

Then they aren't so "free market". Talk to most libertarians and you'll hear a similar proposal. Intellectual property has no solid basis to claim to be property, it's just a state-granted monopoly over an idea.

[@nescius2]

its an oxymoron anyway, my guess is that once truly free, the market would have changed to raid.. _The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog._

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

@@nescius2 "the market would have changed to raid" you mean the market would have become a raid? how does that follow from freedom?

[@nescius2]

@@sofia.eris.bauhaus sorry, English is not my native language, what i meant to say is that there are LOT of assumptions hidden in that idea, all actually make it rather limited than free (like no people are being sold there for example.. or do you think there be such thing like a _free_ slave market?)

[@imulchapeach]

Public funding: NSF, NIH, DoE, DoD, DARPA, NEH, etc. We (the taxpayers) already provide funding, but receive no benefits. In the case of public companies, easy solution: preferred shares. No buybacks of common shares until preferred shares are repurchased at an agreed-upon premium. Or the people hold all patents funded by the state, and receive licensing /royalties.

[@nataliel1806]

Ugh we publicly fund things that get patented and not shared with the community. IP Doesn’t help the public in this country

[@earthandstraw]

"DIRECT governent funding" means government created, debt-free, permanently circulating money, which is what Lincoln's Greenbacks were and when they were issued debt began to disappear from the economy which the bankers hated. The government creates no money, it merely prints and mints the currency which it sells to the banks through the Fed for their customers cash needs and represents only 3% of the money supply in circulation, 97% is electronic account money.

[@Mr.Nichan]

5:23 "Suppose that all compute software could be freely reproduced. ..." I like how you combine this with screen recordings of the applications those of us for whom this is already basically use.

[@leftykeys6944]

Once again we have something Congress can do... but won't.

[@earthandstraw]

Yes, we need an informed movement to elect a Congress dedicated to the public interest who would take the money power back from the global banking sysytem.

[@moisesmaciel5123]

Another idea (which I believe to be more efficient): Patents: Implement a tax for those who decide to protect technologies, formulas, and methods. But not just any tax, rather a specific type of tax created by Arnold Harberger. This tax is a self-assessed property tax with forced sale. The owner determines the value of the taxed property themselves and pays tax based on that value. This might seem easily prone to fraud - owners could simply declare a low value to pay less tax. However, the forced sale provision addresses this issue; anything taxed can be forced to be sold, which encourages owners to increase their property values. Copyrights: A concept similar to Baker's, but without any tax deductions or the creation of charitable institutions. The government establishes an entity (let's call it the Artistic Works Fund). Artists place their works in this entity, forfeiting the ability to register copyrights on them. Once registered with the entity, these works can be freely funded by the public, who receive a voucher exclusively for financing artworks registered in the Artistic Works Fund. This voucher would be funded by a Citizen's Dividend, meaning money the government collects through ad valorem taxes on natural resources, akin to what Alaska does.

[@yusofplayed]

Fantastic, as an attorney in the field this is the subject I wanted to learn about most

[@gopisuvanam6905]

great video.. whats your view on open source medical research?

[@paranadasimple7087]

If you are for capitalism, then you would always have capitalists trying to kill competition for higher profits. You would also have capitalists lobbying for neoliberal policies to strech the profit rate. However and this sucks btw, if you compromise profitability, growth is compromised and that also sucks. So capitalism has its intrinsic flaws. It doesn't matter how you accommodate it

[@saturngenesis1306]

@@ThomasVWorm Indeed. The bulk of product price is ephemera (an embedded ‘claim’ wedded to the intangible value of a trademark) rather than nuts and bolts. When physical manufacturing is stripped of the cost of proprietary design, e.g., monopoly rents, the portion of price formerly made up of such intangibles will implode & the remaining price an order of magnitude lower. ‘Financial capitalism comes from a time’ when, likewise, ‘competition among the few’ was admirably equipped for inducing technical change. However, the initial capital outlay required to undertake physical production is imploding, and as venture capital will lose most of its outlets in manufacturing as well, investment capital is, essentially, superfluous. The easy diffusion of new technology & the transparency of cost-structure will only arbitrage the rate of profit to virtually squeeze artificial scarcity rents. A lower capital outlay shifts the economic calculus to, back again, a ‘market economy,’ subsuming an array of micropower projects & networked individuals, with comparatively cheap capital equipment, ‘inducing growth’ with inexpensive, general-purpose tools that permit unprecedented levels of productivity with physical capital costs an order of magnitude lower.

[@earthandstraw]

Its not just intellectual property patents that creates monopolies. The money creation monoply, using credit/debt for money instead of using money for money, is usury, and that our money is a store of value allows for the massive accumlation of it. If you want money to be an effective medium of exchange it must not be a commodity.

[@falsificationism]

lol "Private military contractors DO develop good weapons..." F-35 say what?

[@nescius2]

is F35 the only weapon ever developed by the Private military contractors? is there anything better in this category? LOL or ROFL?

[@falsificationism]

@@nescius2 I don’t understand the question. Nearly everything is built by private contractors.

[@nescius2]

@@falsificationism don't mind me, just engaging in this nitpicking contest :) how would you understand your comment? ...I thought that finding at least one example of something decent developed by those guys would invalidate your comment, i barely know anything about weapons, however almost everyone in €U want to buy the F35, so it must be at least decent..

[@falsificationism]

@@nescius2 I might be a bit myopic; I'm former military and dreamed of being an F-35 pilot as a kid. It didn't pan out, neither did F-35s. But serving in Iraq, I recognized that what we needed were the basics. Not some technological deus ex machina. We needed bulletproof vests. We needed up-armored humvees. We spent a war of the 21st century engaging with 20th century tools and tactics. It's been a massive failure, really. And that's if you're pro-war. I'm no longer pro-war.

[@nescius2]

@@falsificationism 👍 I've always been against the war (not having the greatest excuse for that one i guess) but with the Borscht war happening just a country away from my home (~1300km away), I feel like this subject is much more important than I hoped it would be in this century.

[@olisorenson]

a few good arguments in here, but axing IP will only make capitalists move to other ventures. we need to get rid of capitalism and the culture of private gain

[@moumouzel]

Only way is to abolish it

[@vagabondwastrel2361]

All you have to do to fix a lot of the economic issue is to remove "person hood" from corporations. That fixes all of the real problems of intellectual property. The real problem in general is socialist policies to try to regulate capitalism creating monopolies.

[@KarlSnarks]

Capitalism is inherently a regulated market, since it requires the enforcement of private and intellectual property. Also, there's nothing socialist about giving corporations personhood status, as it supports a system of private owners accumulating wealth through ownership of capital.

[@kassistwisted]

I think he makes some great comments on Patent Law. But I do not understand how he thinks copyright works. I make a living from my copyrighted material. If I decided to take a govt subsidy of $200 back when I began writing and could therefore not claim copyright for five years, what would keep someone else from publishing my work and making money from it? What would prevent them from copyrighting my work? I would love to live in a world where I could put knowledge out into the world and not have to charge for each copy nor defend my ownership. But this scenario does not protect the artist. Artists are being taken advantage of every day by mego-corps that use their art without licensing it. So the little guy would make $200 (is that per artwork?) but your song will be in the new Disney film and you'll get nothing because "you got the tax credit". Think again. This is not a solution for Copyright.

[@mudmessiah]

Back in 2005 I developed a mental construct I named authenticity as a effective way of living authentically in the moment.. moment by moment. Facebook uses it without my permission. The idea of living authentically is attractive and empowering to new age groups many of them use the product without employing the method. I want to protect this process. Without access to attorneys I have no idea how to do this.

[@ScottDunnC]

Yeah, Dean! Thank you! I laughed throughout because you make the system we have sound so absurd! Whew!

[@russ876]

Some interesting thoughts here, but re the last few minutes: I doubt you’d have many artists after that. Want to talk about corporate greed? A lot of artists typically lose and technically don’t have rights to much of their own work anymore, anyway-they don’t own the means of its mass production or its distribution and a lot of said ownership they would have otherwise possessed is signed away just to get the work disseminated. Some still do pretty well, but they’re a dying breed (perhaps, the idea of that makes others happy; perhaps others like the idea of a songwriter who works as a waiter singing a song written just for them while being served their dinner ‘cuz that’s the singer/songwriter’s *real* job). But for eg: if you could protect the work of a musician from a distributor, then some of those ideas *might* work to an extent.

[@nevadataylor]

I have no idea why people cant see what a stupid world we live in. There is nothing intellectual about intellectual property.

[@aman_chandravanshi]

How to profit from Free market. By making it NOT free.

[@billthompson7072]

Yep. Not using the constitution as a patent for transubstantiation might be a good move 😜

[@tondarmb3947]

Dean baker should be minster of economy .

[@hederatize]

But, but the all the money created to motivate others to work in cooperation for everything, was created by the government, for the benefit and use of the greater good, for all the people. The belief in that the accumulated money is used to hold indiscrete value, able to exchange for anything, is the failure. Money is now created by the debt, how is the token of debts can buy, the priceless, unpriced?

[@GigaSigma1]

That sounds like it would undermine the egregious practice of patent trolling.

[@semarugaijin9451]

It would also eliminate all of the incentive to ring new technologies to market all together.

[@KarenParkerArtist]

Algo bump comment

[@HillbillyHippyOG]

🔥 🔥 🔥 ✌🏼

[@patrickmccutcheon9361]

12.20 ‘patents are in the public domain. Any one can produce it’ Not quite. While technically possible the whole point of the patent system is to reward the patent holder for their innovation efforts and investment with the right to prevent others using the patent. They may authorise others to use the patent if the latter take a licence which would usually involve payment. The operative word is ‘May’ as the patent owner may also decide to exploit the patent themselves. If you did not provide the incentive / reward of the patent for ground-breaking research there would be no more investment in R&D and no technical progress.

[@semarugaijin9451]

Thank you for actually having a brain. You are right 100%

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

he said it pretty confusingly, but i'm pretty sure he meant that's what he wants, not how it is. he kinda flip-flops between the two. or maybe it's the editor's fault. it's extra confusing because patents _are_ technically not copyrighted, you're just not prohibited from implementing them.

[@platypuss619]

if you think people would not invent advancements in technology nor other sectors because they couldnt exploit someone else, I think youre an idiot. Innovation is not solely derived from greed. innovation comes from a multitude of places like repeatedly doing something and find a mode effecient way to, from facing a problem and finding a solution, from addicental mishaps. There is fundamental ignorance in your statement that innovation comes from greed.

[@dallasweaver4061]

He obviously knows little about innovation but has a lot of envy.

[@semarugaijin9451]

If direct public funding would provide better technology and innovation then why did virtually EVERY new technology in the last century seem to only come from market economies. Why was the Soviet Union in 1988 making cars that were technologically obsolete to cars that America and the UK were making in 1958.... Do not misunderstand me, I too reject Neo-Liberal market fundamentalism, Especially in its current global corporate internationalist form. But whatever the hell is wrong with our system ( Quite a lot, btw) I don't think that North Korea has any great insights for us. It is true that our current patent system is wildly corrupt, But there are a lot of countries that seem to have successful private enterprise AND all of the things that socialists want. A strong Welfare State, Strong Unions, Guaranteed Healthcare, etc, etc I think in many ways the Chinese model, Where you have free-enterprise, But the capitalists are clearly subservient to the state and the party....

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

"Where you have free-enterprise, But the capitalists are clearly subservient to the state and the party...." how is that not an obvious contradiction?

[@platypuss619]

Kinda weird because the greatest invention of history "the internet" was created by the military and from tax payer dollars...Like many other innovations.

[@semarugaijin9451]

@@sofia.eris.bauhaus is not a contradiction. In fact it is the universal historic norm. All societies have a merchant class that provide valuable goods and services to society but are not permitted to openly BUY policy and government directly. Look at China, They have a ruling class and party that absolutely cannot be bought by capitalists. They allow capitalists to exist, But they are closely monitored and supervised by members of the ruling vanguard and party. The fact that you find that to be a contradiction says more about your biases than mine. The merchant class both A- being allowed to exist And B- Subservient to the state... Is the historic norm.

[@semarugaijin9451]

​@@platypuss619 This is such a popular but unbelievably dumb myth. The military in no way created what we now know as the internet. Its almost like saying that the government invented cars because it created the first roads that cars drive on. 99.9% of all the technology that the modern internet uses was created by the private sector. The original DARPA-Net was nothing like the internet that we use today in ANY meaningful way. Not in terms of how it connects systems together or any of the technology it uses, The internet that we all use today bares almost no resemblance to the Military darpa-net, This is simply a low-IQ popular myth. Exactly ZERO% of the infrastructure that we use today has any underpinnings of the Military DARPA-Net system. All of our infrastructure, Weather it is Cable or Fiber or Ethernet came from private industry. Not to mention all of the patents, Infrastructure, and communications standards. PS, I am not arguing for neo-liberal economics, I agree that government has a role in innovation, All I am saying is that so does the private sector as well. If the internet was not open to private investment, It would never be what it is today, It would still just be a way to connect military bases. Same for navigation systems.

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

@@semarugaijin9451 heh, you just dropped the "free enterprise" entirely and replaced it with "being allowed to exist". and yes, if business is made up of a class of government cronies, the government will probably allow them to exist. it's obviously in the interest of the state to have loyal lackeys in business. and what is it now, a historical universal or just the norm? when i say "free enterprise", i mean that everyone is free to engage in voluntary commerce as much as they see fit. business being limited to a privileged class of state croneys is pretty much the opposite. because of the "free" part.

[@JerzyFeliksKlein]

This is insane. I'm left of center and this simply terrified me. I wondered where all of this is coming from and the only reason I can think of is that he spent his entire working life in a university, out of the private market, working for arbitrarily assigned grants.

[@throwawayidiot6451]

No, you are not left. Go back to the right wing channels

[@fangzification]

Break down why the points made in this video are insane.

[@KarlMarxFanClub]

Democrats today are essentially republicans of the 1990s. Center left today is a right winger. Liberals today basically believe in neoliberal unfettered capitalism. America has become so far right they believe paid maternity leave and universal healthcare is socialist!! That’s how uneducated you people have become.

[@gopisuvanam6905]

this is the sanest video on IPR.. left and free market libertarians both support abolition of IPR