• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Uh, copyleft still depends on copyright. All it means is that licenses are free so long as the terms are followed, but it still relies on licensing. The actual opposite(s) of copyright is open-source and/or public domain.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          Open source licenses also depend on copyright. The opposite of copyright is IP anarchy.

    • ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      55
      ·
      6 days ago

      Copyright infringement in China is awesome! It allows one to buy things at a fraction of the cost because of such competition. A lot of western brands’ factories sell the product locally unbranded for 1/10 of the price and it’s awesome

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Copyright infringement also means small creators get their lunch money stolen by big Chinese corporations. Copyright doesn’t just protect corpos.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 days ago

            Sure, at the cost of the people doing the work to design the product not being compensated for their labor.

            • Electricblush@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Yes, because that is where all the profit goes in Western companies, and not the CEO, upper management and stockholders…

              You are not wrong in assuming that exploited labor is being under compensated, but different models of labor exploitation aside, people actually making value are not the people reaping the benefits.

              • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                Ok but it’s not done by a bunch of Robin Hoods, they rip off (read: steal and then destroy the economic capacity of) small/independent designers all the time too.

                • Electricblush@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  Oh absolutely, I was mainly targeting the notion that the way “legit” companies distribute the profits is somehow more fair.

                  If anything these markets show what the actual cost of production is, so it shows how much profit could have been distributed to those actually producing the goods. (Including designers, factory workers etc)

                  A lot more people could have sustainable incomes instead of CEOs getting their third yacht…

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                That’s true, I would prefer the people doing the most work get the most reward. But currently they’re getting none, so I would settle for some.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              The ones designing the vast majority of IP are paid in wages, the ones who own the IP have not actually designed it, or played a minimal role, ie outlining what they want designed. Copyright is something that is truly unnecessary in general, it is at its best when protecting the vast minority of small producers who own their own designs and can actually afford to manufacture and sell them, but the bulk of the economy is not at all organized in such a fashion to begin with.