
No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection - tech-historian
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200602/13143644631/no-california-law-review-food-plating-does-not-deserve-copyright-protection.shtml
======
maxharris
As everything gets automated and jobs become scarce, one of the few remaining
ways to make money is to create intellectual property.

So I think there should be more IP, not less.

~~~
dredmorbius
[https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n...](https://archive.org/details/engineersandpri01veblgoog/page/n63/mode/2up)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

~~~
btrettel
Generally, I don't like when people reply with only links to someone else
unless that person specifically requested a link or links. What the second
poster intends to communicate through this is not always clear in my
experience.

I assume that you believe basic income is a better solution than intellectual
property. But I'm not seeing why you posted the first link.

~~~
dredmorbius
Veblen notes that engineering automation progressively transfers income from
labour to technologists to capitalists.

Absent a shared wealth approach -- a national capital allotment being one form
of a UBI -- you'll have to pursue ever more tortured, and toxic, definitions
of property, enclosures, and ham-fisted and draconian exclusionary regimes.

If your creatives and labourers are assured sufficient consistent income, IP
becomes a ... patently ... irrellevant burdenous obstruction. Which it is.

