[6P58r3MXJSLi]

Isn't it the opposite: the author is the only one who has the right to dictate what other people do with his creation?

An extreme example: I do not want my code to be used in weapons guidance systems. Am I not expressing my rights as an author?

[constantcrying]

I am against IP, so you should not have that right.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

I am against corporations profiting from others people works, for free.

If that was not allowed, if people could only use my work for no profit purposes, I agree.

That's what CC (creative commons) is for, though.

I am also in favour of people "remixing" and even making money out of it, but the intent it's paramount to me.

As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion.

More than once I contacted the author of some work I liked and they gave me free license to use it, no questions asked (after explaining what I would use it for).

IMO basic cooperation between good willing people goes a long way, without stripping authors of their rights.

Edit: typos

[constantcrying]

>As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion.

IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd.

If you think IP should not exist then creative output is free to use by everyone and of course corporations are also free to profit from it.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

> It is putting an ownership

over an artifact

You can copy the idea though

And I say copy because before the author made it in the form of an artifact, you didn't know it could be done, or you could have done it on your own.

I can draw ocean waves, nobody owns ocean waves

But if I cooy verbatim hokusai ocean waves, it's mehhhhhhhh

I'm a ripoff loser and should be punished for doing it

Edit: but I like your closing sentence.

Free for all to use it as they see fit is an interesting thought, however I think that imbalance of the means of production will always make the corporations the ultimate beneficiaries, so we should also rethink how our economic system works.

For example: if I could copy the avengers, people would say "it's a cheap copy of Disney's original" and I would hardly make any money out of it.

It's an interesting POV nonetheless.

[constantcrying]

>But if I cooy verbatim hokusai ocean waves, it's mehhhhhhhh >I'm a ripoff loser and should be punished for doing it

You are totally free to copy that painting in whatever way you want. There is literally zero intellectual property attached to it. This isn't a hypothetical, it is the law right now. Nobody can stop you painting a replica and selling it, as long as you disclose that it is a replica. It is in the public domain and there will be no punishment.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

Of course

But I've never said you can't, I've said it's lame and you should be punished for doing it, punished meaning people will totally not attach any meaningful value to it, because it's a stupid replica

Value in art is not given by the content (and usually not the idea), but by the author's intent

The fact that you can legally copy something that is in public domain doesn't take away authors' rights to decide what you can and cannot do with their creation

The problem here is that corporations want to copy creations of authors that are still alive and never granted them rights to replicate them ad libitum, for free.

[bobsomers]

> IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd.

IP isn't ownership over an idea, it's ownership over a specific artifact.

You cannot copyright the idea of painting or the ideas contained within a specific painting, but you can copyright this specific painting because this specific painting is an artifact.

[throwway120385]

Or, even more extreme: I don't want anyone to view or read my work, at all.