this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
6 points (68.8% liked)

libertarianism

396 readers
1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the "construction manual" is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I did some research and it reinforces my suspicions. Of course, having no IP protection had many clear disadvantages. But this has not prevented the development of advanced civilizations and fundamental innovations. On the contrary. Through the open exchange of knowledge, things could be created that are far greater than a human or a company can handle. IP is a child of the Enlightenment, when ideas or something intangible began to be regarded as a structure of our intellect and thus as property, just like tangible things.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I never said that lack of IP will prevent innovation. It will, however, slow it down.

The rate of technological progress accelerated considerably at the same time that IP protections were enacted.

Gutenberg developed his printing press around 1440. The first copyright law was enacted in 1710.

How many works of literature can you name that were published in the 270 years between 1440 and 1710? How many between 1710 and 1980?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But is this still true in the days of AI and automation? What if not we humans but some neural networks will be the main researchers of tomorrow? I'm just thinking

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Copyright law has already foreseen that possibility. Only things created by humans are eligible for copyright, and there are already cases where copyright was denied for work generated by an AI.