[ThomPete]

The IP laws are based on greed/capitalism/profit. No one besides the big corps want this just ask Mickey Mouse.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The IP laws are based on greed/capitalism/profit. No one besides the big corps want this just ask Mickey Mouse.

I believe that's the point. "Big corporations lobbying government for rent-seeking legislation" isn't capitalism, it's corruption.

[ThomPete]

Lobbyism is legal so no.

[AnthonyMouse]

Corrupt doesn't mean illegal, it means dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity, etc.

[ThomPete]

Or fraudulent which is the right word in this context. Lobbyism is legal whether it's dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity.

So corruption in this context should be understood as fraudulent which is illegal.

[AnthonyMouse]

In what sense is it fraudulent? A straightforward exchange of money for policy doesn't require anybody to lie. The harm is from the disloyalty and lack of integrity of the elected representative. And making policies in order to get money is disloyal regardless of whether it's illegal.

[ThomPete]

Lobbyism is legal so in this context corruption to be anything meaningful is illegal. Otherwise it's just lobbyism.

Fraudulent is one of the terms used to describe what corruption is it's adequate here.

[livingparadox]

If there are multiple meanings for a word, I think the author (AnthonyMouse) would get the final word on which meaning he intended. And he made it clear he intended it to mean "dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity" not "fradulent" or "illegal".

[ThomPete]

Yes there are multiple meanings. Since lobbyism is legal in this context corruption would mean fraudulent.

[atom-morgan]

But they only exist because the government has the power to create those laws. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[burkaman]

You can still hate the player, especially when they have more power than you. "It's legal" doesn't mean it's right.

[atom-morgan]

I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I simply believe people target their outrage at the wrong party in this instance.

[hfourm]

Its also reasonable to both blame the laws and the insert "greedy" player here. It usually takes two parties to mutually benefit off a partnership

[ThomPete]

They still exist because companies lobby to keep them alive.

I don't hate the player I simply observe how the game is played.

[atom-morgan]

True. Point is I think the government should be the focus here, not the players who take advantage of the rules they create.

[ThomPete]

I think both should be at the focus as they are often two pieces of the same part.

[atom-morgan]

Think of segregation/separate but equal. Nothing can really stop someone from choosing not to associate with another person because of their race or gender. And that's generally okay. But the second it becomes law of the land, through government, it's a problem. IP is no different.

[ThomPete]

There is plenty of lobbyism that's ok. The problem is when it's conspiring against the interest of the society as a whole. So both should of course be monitored closely.