False Opinion ≠ Unpopular Opinion

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Settle down PRC.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Actually I'm a libertarian but okay

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Username checkout

by Anonymous 2 years ago

I cannot believe how many "unpopular opinions" on here are just out right objectively wrong by definition.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

so like, authors shouldn't be able to have any claim of ownership to their written works?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Opinion is based on false information

by Anonymous 2 years ago

So if I design something or create something I.sshould just.give it away for free.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Any sort of R&D work in the private sector wouldn't receive funding anymore because they wouldn't be able to recoup their costs. I don't think people that are against IP protection work in fields that require that kind of intelligence. They can only see their own need to consume products for free.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

So I have this idea for a movie. It's about a theme park. But wait! Not just any theme park. A theme park with dinosaurs! I haven't decided what I'll call it yet. Hmmm. Maybe...Maybe something like Jurassic...Jurassic...Jurassic Park! Yeah, Jurassic Park sounds great. Man, I can't wait to write the script. I have a feeling people are really going to love it.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Go ahead, if nobody watches it (since they've all seen it before) it's your loss

by Anonymous 2 years ago

I just have to wait a few years. Younger people won't even know about the original.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

The original will still exist. It may receive more attention than yours as well.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

And I may receive more attention than it as well.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

How would you like it if you put a lot of time, money, and effort into creating a great product only to have someone else steal all your customers by selling them an inferior knock off? How would you like it if you had spent years, and millions of dollars cultivating a reputation for high quality for your brand only to have someone else ruin that reputation by flooding there market with low quality knock offs with your logo on them without your permission?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

If it's inferior why would they buy the inferior version as opposed to mine?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Price and accessibility. Many companies have been damaged or gone under when someone with more resources steals the knowledge and undercuts the price. The one with greater resources also is able to push out more of the product if there's a demand. Even if the original is better, it's not sustainable because it can't win the war of attrition against the copycat(s).

by Anonymous 2 years ago

If it's still the story I want people to read, that's fine. Most authors don't write for profit, they use it as a creative outlet. If people are reading my story I don't care if someone publishes it for free for me.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Are you paying for the author's livelihood? ‘Most authors don't write for profit' thats stupid.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Because they're cheaper and more accessible. Amazon and wish.com are loaded with counterfeit versions of high end brand merchandise being sold for a fraction of the price of the real stuff. The sale of counterfeit consumer goods is the biggest and most lucrative criminal enterprise in the world and itt causes a lot of harm to the economy.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Pay a cheaper price, get a cheaper product. If you want to real thing you pay full price. Plus, this incentives price decreases anyway.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Not how that works. Most of the time, the consumer doesn't know what they're buying is fake; they think they're buying the real thing. And when they buy a fake Coach purse for example, it hurts Coach's many employees, distributors, and licensees who depend on the sale the the real stuff for their livelihood. Plus when low quality peruses with Coach's logo illegally put on them start circulating the market, it degrades the reputation of the brand making it less likely people will buy their products in the future. If people don't want to spend a bunch of money on luxury brands, than they shouldn't buy luxury brands.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

I'd say putting the logo on is just fraud and when someone finds out, they won't be happy.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

So you agree that putting the logo on something without copyright permission (aka intellectual property theft) is in fact wrong and something that should be illegal?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Tell that to the patent office.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Patents are to protect big companies from stealing an idea away from the inventor though...

by Anonymous 2 years ago

They end up buying it anyway and making it worse for everyone else.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Buying what?

by Anonymous 2 years ago

The patent.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

ofc it benefits society. its an incitive to create things that add value.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Unpopular indeed. Yes, I agree if people are trying to trademark dumb stuff. First thing that comes to mind is the term "Sanmai." There was a big fuss in the knives community years ago. Sanmai method is inserting a core steel between two pieces of cladding to make laminated knives and sword blades. This is an extremely old technique so whoever was trying had no business doing it. Laminating is common among blade makers. It would mean blade makers couldn't describe their blades as "sanmai," or advertise that they sold "sanmai" blades, which is ridiculous because that's literally what it is. It's like trying to trademark "Hamburger" and then getting mad when restaurants call their burgers "hamburger." That being said, if you came up with a formula for something after many years of grueling research, you wrote a book, or you composed music, I think that definitely belongs to you and you should be rewarded for it. I disagree that it benefits few people. Knowing where you're getting something and that it will be consistent every time is critical for a lot of things. Getting rid of the concept of IP also means people who discover and create things just won't share them because others will steal it. That's worse than protecting IP.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

IP also compromises private healthcare's economic efficiency, which has definitely killed more people than legal piracy would kill.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

It would be worse if there was no IP. There would be no R&D from private companies at all. This issue is an issue with controls on pricing, not owning IP. If controls are fine to prevent scalping, they're fine when it comes to price ceilings for lifesaving meds and procedures.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Price control has always and will always fail, it's bad economics. R&D begins when companies reach a stalemate in prices— when they barely make a profit from each sale and can't drive their price down lower, they begin to look for either a cheaper way to produce the product, more products, or a better quality product that they can sell for more. The issue with IP is there cannot be two companies selling insulin, thus no innovation will occur and the price will be whatever the company wants.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Can't agree. Total lack of price control would make scalping worse. There can be and there is often 2 people selling the same thing. The ownership doesn't (and shouldn't) last forever. It sounds like you're concerned about monopolization. Which is a valid concern and the laws in this area do need some improvement. But nuking IP completely is like burning your house to kill a spider.

by Anonymous 2 years ago

Intellectual Property may not limit it to one person, but the issue is that it limits it. When I can start another company whenever I want and sell whatever I want, it provides competition, which is a good market force, possibly the best. The issue is that these companies can pay to extent their patents as much as possible. I am concerned about monopolization because I am a free-market anarchist, and I believe that government force to break up monopolies is inefficient and unethical. Sometimes, the spider is radioactive and made of metal, and you need to burn down the house to get rid of it.

by Anonymous 2 years ago