• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
Nyet, though, like Van Basten, I do think they are frequently abused and I am certainly aware of horror stories surrounding them.
 
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?
 
Only someone who doesn't get good ideas would think so.
 
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.
 
Who here thinks the idea of one click purchases are property? I don't, but Amazon and the government does.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom