• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Intellectual Property Laws be Abolished?

Should Intellectual Property Laws be Abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • No

    Votes: 21 84.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nyet, though, like Van Basten, I do think they are frequently abused and I am certainly aware of horror stories surrounding them.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When I buy an apple do I also own the seeds?

Yes.

Can I use those seeds to grow an apple tree?

Yes.

Can I sell the apples that I grew on the tree that was grown from the seeds that I took from the apple?

Yes.

Why is it different for other things?
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
38,495
Reaction score
20,440
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Only someone who doesn't get good ideas would think so.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When I buy an apple do I also own the seeds?

Yes.

Possibly, though legally speaking that could be up for debate.

Can I use those seeds to grow an apple tree?

Yes.

See above.

Can I sell the apples that I grew on the tree that was grown from the seeds that I took from the apple?

Yes.

See above.

Why is it different for other things?

It isn't, necessarily. It depends on how the company (or as in your example, the grower) is able to trademark/patent/copyright it.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Who here thinks the idea of one click purchases are property? I don't, but Amazon and the government does.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Possibly, though legally speaking that could be up for debate.



See above.



See above.



It isn't, necessarily. It depends on how the company (or as in your example, the grower) is able to trademark/patent/copyright it.

It's a pretty weird thing to claim that legally you can dispose and destroy property that you do not own. :lol: That would seem to me what is required to claim that the seeds are still the property of the seller.
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,970
Reaction score
4,323
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, but ownership shouldn't last 70 years after the death of the person, or whatever the crazy laws are now. The post-death expiry date keeps getting extended because of companies like Disney who don't want to release their grip. It's not right.

It's kind of irrelevant anyway because anyone with a modicum of intelligence can get any content any time they want. The internet is highly democratizing to content and information.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I am in favor of intellectual property protections but there needs to be reasonable time limits on them. And those time limits can vary based on the nature of the product. For example, I am ok with an author keeping the copyright to his work for his whole life. But a pharmaceutical company shouldn't be able to hold on to a patent for a life saving drug anywhere near that long.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who here thinks the idea of one click purchases are property? I don't, but Amazon and the government does.

If you had ever created something unique that you could also financially benefit from, you would think differently. Unless you're a communist, which frankly I would not have seen coming.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If you had ever created something unique that you could also financially benefit from, you would think differently. Unless you're a communist, which frankly I would not have seen coming.

I would not. What right do I have to limit the ability of property owners to use their property in a peaceful manner?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would not. What right do I have to limit the ability of property owners to use their property in a peaceful manner?

Well if you truly own something, then you have the right to sell it, right? I mean, according to where you're coming from.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am in favor of intellectual property protections but there needs to be reasonable time limits on them. And those time limits can vary based on the nature of the product. For example, I am ok with an author keeping the copyright to his work for his whole life. But a pharmaceutical company shouldn't be able to hold on to a patent for a life saving drug anywhere near that long.

The only thing I see as reasonable is to have an agreement with the buyer that they won't copy the product. There is no valid reason that the rights of people that never bought the product should be limited. Agreement on products are made between buyer and seller, not seller and the rest of the world.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only thing I see as reasonable is to have an agreement with the buyer that they won't copy the product. There is no valid reason that the rights of people that never bought the product should be limited. Agreement on products are made between buyer and seller, not seller and the rest of the world.

Uh, no. That's not how intellectual property rights work, and thank god too. What a ridiculous loophole that would offer: "Hey, Joe, go buy that painting for me. That way, when you give it to me, I can make prints of it and sell them." Ridiculous.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Uh, no. That's not how intellectual property rights work, and thank god too. What a ridiculous loophole that would offer: "Hey, Joe, go buy that painting for me. That way, when you give it to me, I can make prints of it and sell them." Ridiculous.

I was speaking towards a private contract, not law.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was speaking towards a private contract, not law.

And fortunately the law covers such eventualities. That said, next time you purchase, say, software, read the fine print. That's a contract that you have to put a check mark in. And if that contract doesn't cover the conditions under which you can use or distribute it then I can guarantee you that somebody in legal is going to lose his job.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Garth Brooks believes the second-hand music industry should be outlawed. I'm paraphrasing, but he feels that if you no longer want a CD you should be forbidden from selling it to someone else. And if that person wants it, they should be required to buy a new one. At full price and full royalty to him, of course.

That's going too far (and thankfully we're not there... yet). The way it is now is fine. I own the CD and can sell said CD, but I cannot sell copies or use it to make money without permission.

Intellectual property protection is good, but it does need reform.

For example: The lifetime of the creator thing is reasonable, and even some time after death, say 25 or 30 years. If a company such as Disney creates something then they should get to keep it forever as long as they are still Disney. They are still "alive", if you will. If they merge or get bought out, then Disney "dies" and the clock starts ticking toward expiration and cannot be extended or renewed. That would be reasonable.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Garth Brooks believes the second-hand music industry should be outlawed. I'm paraphrasing, but he feels that if you no longer want a CD you should be forbidden from selling it to someone else. And if that person wants it, they should be required to buy a new one. At full price and full royalty to him, of course.

That's going too far (and thankfully we're not there... yet). The way it is now is fine. I own the CD and can sell said CD, but I cannot sell copies or use it to make money without permission.

Garth Brooks' position doesn't make any sense from the perspective of my own field. I charge a certain price for a painting, and the client is free to turn it around and sell it at a profit if that's his wish. What the client does not own, however, is the rights to the image itself, which would allow him to mass produce and distribute at a profit.
Intellectual property protection is good, but it does need reform.

For example: The lifetime of the creator thing is reasonable, and even some time after death, say 25 or 30 years. If a company such as Disney creates something then they should get to keep it forever as long as they are still Disney. They are still "alive", if you will. If they merge or get bought out, then Disney "dies" and the clock starts ticking toward expiration and cannot be extended or renewed. That would be reasonable.[/QUOTE]

I generally agree with this, though large companies have screwed its creators in the most horrendous of fashions. That lifetime copyright has ended up robbing the actual content creators of the right to profit from their works for their whole lives. It happens so often it's ridiculous.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For books, articles, graphic design, music, shows/movies the copyrights imo should last until the original author dies. After that, the copyright should end. UNLESS the spouse is still alive, then it can be extended until they die and no more. Their kids should not get the copyright.

Any technological invention should only have a copyright that lasts no more than 30 years.

Pharmaceutical discoveries should last no longer than 20 years.

Copyright laws are good in that it allows a person to contribute and yet make money to perhaps achieve more inventions. But it can be carried too far and be a detriment to innovation and advancement.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I generally agree with this, though large companies have screwed its creators in the most horrendous of fashions. That lifetime copyright has ended up robbing the actual content creators of the right to profit from their works for their whole lives. It happens so often it's ridiculous.
Oh yeah, there are plenty of examples. I know a guy who used to work for a large aerospace firm. He created three things that were patented. All he got was a plaque saying he was the guy. No royalties, no bonus, nothing.

I believe that's unfair, and that the human creator should get half ownership when they do something for their employer, but I can't quite get myself to want to see that codified into law.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,771
Reaction score
59,060
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For books, articles, graphic design, music, shows/movies the copyrights imo should last until the original author dies. After that, the copyright should end. UNLESS the spouse is still alive, then it can be extended until they die and no more. Their kids should not get the copyright.

Any technological invention should only have a copyright that lasts no more than 30 years.

Pharmaceutical discoveries should last no longer than 20 years.

Copyright laws are good in that it allows a person to contribute and yet make money to perhaps achieve more inventions. But it can be carried too far and be a detriment to innovation and advancement.

I generally agree with you, but I feel that for artistic creations there's no viable reason that it can't last longer. You're not prohibiting the development of music, art or performance in the same way that you would be stunting important scientific development. While I'm obviously looking at this from an angle of self interest, I can very easily accept the notion of the copyright of my work as a form of inheritance for my children.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom