• @the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Far more fit for purpose than scrapping the concept altogether as this graphic suggests.

    But they are broken though, aren’t they? Like there aren’t any authors going “Oh gee, if I couldn’t guarantee the rights to my works for over half a century after I dead then I’d pack in this writing lark and go and work at the widget factory”.

    You see laws evolve when they are deemed to no longer be fit for purpose, IP laws are constantly reviewed through case law.

    We’re talking about revolution, not evolution. Legislation, not interpretation. I’m asking if you were told to rip out the laws and start again, what would you do? Is that not a more interesting conversation than explaining to me how case law works?

    I mean if you want to play “I work in IP LOL Lefty snowflake tears” then sure. Do that. Hope you have a nice time with it. Seems boring though.

      • @the_inebriati@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Sounds like you’re trying to school a highly qualified professional in something that you’ve only just googled 5 minutes ago. I see Lemmy is just like Reddit in that way.

        Nobody is “schooling” anyone, friend. You brought up IP, I attempted to engage with you because I thought you wanted to talk about it. And now you’re crying about nobody can disagree with a “highly qualified professional” and have turned a request for you to share your thoughts and experience into a confrontation.

        just trying to think about sensible policy that’s workable in reality

        That’s literally what I’ve been trying to do. To get you to tell me what you think sensible policy is.

        I think I’m upsetting you, so I’m going to disengage now. Hope your day gets better, mate.