I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • PropaGandalf@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
    32·
    1 year ago

    Sure, I’m also more of a civil/technolibertarian. I fear the power of the government and the power of big corporations equally. There are different ways to mitigate this problem but the main ones are:

    • Try to restrict everything and close every loophole
    • Make no distinctions and allow everybody to do with the assets they control to to whatever they want as long as it does not directly harm the other person

    And as you see I’m leaning towards the second one. Bear in mind that the corpos arent the only ones who can copy everything and redistribute it. Everything they make is also freely accessible. I think many people tend to forget that abolishing IP is a bigger threat to corporations than small individuals. Just think about it: Could monopolists as big as Microsoft, Google, Apple still exist if every invention could be copied by other big companies? Wouldn’t they be more likely to keep each other in check, so that no one could achieve such an oversize?