The way I tend to feel about this is that it’s a jerk move if you’re mocking some other group, or reasonably could be seen as mocking them, or try to claim that you/your group invented the thing you’re using, but otherwise, borrowing stuff people like from other cultures is just one of the ways cultures evolve.
I can see some people objecting on the grounds that imitating something distinctive makes that thing less unique to the original group, or that an imitation by outsiders won’t include some aspect important to the original and then that people that see the imitation won’t get that aspect.
I can certainly understand why those feelings could lead to frustration, but applied strictly, the idea that certain things belong exclusively to the cultures that invented them both requires forcing people into precise boxes as to which culture they belong to, and sort of resembles a type of socially enforced intellectual property, which, being against IP as a concept, is something I feel like I’d be hypocritical agreeing with.
Has me hella curious. Can you elaborate? Is it the capitalist aspect of patents/trademarks and licensing or something else? I believe that people who invent a concept/character/world should have ownership to develop it into what their grander vision may be before someone else can come and write the story/use of their tool. Id love to hear your side of this though because I don’t know anyone thats ever told me their against IP as a concept
“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.
ETA: It’s written from the perspective of believers in the broad capitalist structure. The authors are serious economists that support the free market in no uncertain terms.
I would argue that IP doesnt need to be purly capitalistic though. Yea i agree that if we have a life saving drug, dont let 1 company monopolize the shit out of it and let people die for an extra dollar, but i dont know that ill say IP shouldnt exist.
If someone writes a story, creates a character or world, i want that content creator to be able to develop it without people infringing. If someone created a great game, i dont want a bunch of shit companies racing to put out the next title in the interest of making a buck off someone elses idea. I want who ever created that game to own the franchise long enough that they can make a second, third, or 4th game (or what ever media they adapt) to continue telling their story before other people put out low quality content that spoils the franchise
And the authors aren’t really saying that, either.
To be clear, I don’t agree with all of the authors’ positions. I also think it’s worth noting that the authors are not advocating for an elimination of the patent and copyright systems without replacing them with systems better suited to ensuring creator prosperity while also allowing for speedier human innovation.
It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the subject matter. It challenged my opinions on intellectual property, but didn’t change them entirely. Things they discuss, such as patent trolling and patent squatting, are worth contemplation. How can we change IP law to disincentivize such antisocial intellectual property law use by bad-faith actors?
ETA:
The economic burden of today’s patent lawsuits is, in fact, historically unprecedented. Research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year.
The way I tend to feel about this is that it’s a jerk move if you’re mocking some other group, or reasonably could be seen as mocking them, or try to claim that you/your group invented the thing you’re using, but otherwise, borrowing stuff people like from other cultures is just one of the ways cultures evolve.
I can see some people objecting on the grounds that imitating something distinctive makes that thing less unique to the original group, or that an imitation by outsiders won’t include some aspect important to the original and then that people that see the imitation won’t get that aspect.
I can certainly understand why those feelings could lead to frustration, but applied strictly, the idea that certain things belong exclusively to the cultures that invented them both requires forcing people into precise boxes as to which culture they belong to, and sort of resembles a type of socially enforced intellectual property, which, being against IP as a concept, is something I feel like I’d be hypocritical agreeing with.
The only reason im replying is
Has me hella curious. Can you elaborate? Is it the capitalist aspect of patents/trademarks and licensing or something else? I believe that people who invent a concept/character/world should have ownership to develop it into what their grander vision may be before someone else can come and write the story/use of their tool. Id love to hear your side of this though because I don’t know anyone thats ever told me their against IP as a concept
This is a great read on the IP topic. I highly recommend it:
Against Intellectual Monopoly
This is the co-author’s site and it does contain the full text, although physical copies are available directly from the Cambridge University Press.
Here’s a summary:
ETA: It’s written from the perspective of believers in the broad capitalist structure. The authors are serious economists that support the free market in no uncertain terms.
I would argue that IP doesnt need to be purly capitalistic though. Yea i agree that if we have a life saving drug, dont let 1 company monopolize the shit out of it and let people die for an extra dollar, but i dont know that ill say IP shouldnt exist.
If someone writes a story, creates a character or world, i want that content creator to be able to develop it without people infringing. If someone created a great game, i dont want a bunch of shit companies racing to put out the next title in the interest of making a buck off someone elses idea. I want who ever created that game to own the franchise long enough that they can make a second, third, or 4th game (or what ever media they adapt) to continue telling their story before other people put out low quality content that spoils the franchise
And the authors aren’t really saying that, either.
To be clear, I don’t agree with all of the authors’ positions. I also think it’s worth noting that the authors are not advocating for an elimination of the patent and copyright systems without replacing them with systems better suited to ensuring creator prosperity while also allowing for speedier human innovation.
It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the subject matter. It challenged my opinions on intellectual property, but didn’t change them entirely. Things they discuss, such as patent trolling and patent squatting, are worth contemplation. How can we change IP law to disincentivize such antisocial intellectual property law use by bad-faith actors?
ETA:
(From the above article… and that was in 2014!)
Well said.