[piva00]

> "Stop the IP theft" - This feels like a cause pushed primarily by the 1%. Let's be realistic: 99% of people don't own patents and have little stake in strengthening IP protections.

Artists are not primarily in the 1% though, it's not only patents that are IP theft.

[vjvjvjvjghv]

Do the artists that are not in the 1% actually benefit from IP or does it hinder them from building new art based on other art? It seem to me that IP only benefits the top players.

[piva00]

Can you give me an example of the situation you are picturing?

Simply because I can't see what you mean by artists being hindered by IP, artists try to create original work, and derivative work from other IP is usually re-interpreted enough to fall under fair use. I can't picture a situation where artists could be hindered on their creations due to IP owned by others.

[justincormack]

Sampling in music is now paid for, it used to be free, as one example.

[piva00]

Sampling is still done, I'm a hobbyist music producer, and friends with many professionals. They have to clear the samples and pay royalties, and they get royalties from sampled tracks.

It's more cumbersome while being fairer, it hasn't stopped at all the practice. As a hobbyist I do it all the time while my professional friends clear their samples before earning money on their tracks.

[mh-]

Agreed. There are some pretty cool platforms in the last 5 years to streamline this process, too.

[philipwhiuk]

Photographers massively benefit from IP protection.

[hugh-avherald]

IP law gives young or up-and-coming artists leverage in negotiations.