3 ms·

I agree that the cost of writing books is high, which is why we have copyright. Your website is a poor example: you wrote something which was popular for maybe

I agree that the cost of writing books is high, which is why we have copyright. Your website is a poor example: you wrote something which was popular for maybe a few days/weeks. Your investment was (I assume) repaid over that time. To any viewer of your site, there is no cost to visiting you over visiting any other site, so there is no incentive to find/use an alternative source. I completely agree that, in such a scenario, being the first to market is a sufficient benefit, and that such content doesn't need much in the way of protection. Some drugs are expensive to manufacture, yes. A great many aren't, too. Regardless of that, the company that doesn't have to invest in researching the drug will always be able to turn out a cheaper product, and thus reap the large majority of the profit: there being an incentive in this case for consumers to find cheaper companies. There is no reasonable likelihood of the company doing the research covering its costs in this scenario. If drugs had a life span of a few months, this wouldn't be the case, but they are used for much longer periods of time. I don't underestimate the difficulty of running a regulatory agency: so much is plain from the mess that the US' system is currently in. I just think that the alternative of making research in many industries a waste of time is even worse. While I favour a more radical overhaul, a few simple changes, such as eliminating software patents, would make the US system much more reasonable.

kiba 16y ago
I agree that the cost of writing books is high, which is why we have copyright. Your website is a poor example: you wrote something which was popular for maybe a few days/weeks. Your investment was (I assume) repaid over that time. To any viewer of your site, there is no cost to visiting you over visiting any other site, so there is no incentive to find/use an alternative source. I completely agree that, in such a scenario, being the first to market is a sufficient benefit, and that such content doesn't need much in the way of protection. Now, are you simply just glossing over what I have told you about books and British authors? Do I have to point to you to an example of a public domain video game that actually made money? Since when my website stop being visible to the world after digg has made it through? I still get thousands of visitors each month. such as eliminating software patents, would make the US system much more reasonable. Do you have any sense of history whatsoever? When is at any point in history that the US patent system actually function the way it supposed to? I can points to you horror stories about patents gone bad in the 19th century and the music sheet wars as well various submarine patents. It's not some problem that suddenly pop up in some modern time that only impact the last 30 years or so. It's a problem that exists throughout economic history.
- AlisdairO 16y ago
  I did see what you wrote about British authors, I just didn't really consider it relevant: > Heck, the first mover advantages apply to the American publishing industry centuries ago, when there is no recognition of foreign copyright. In some cases, the British authors actually earn more from their sale of manuscript to American publisher(so they can be first), than they do from royalties in their own country. I read this as "Way back, when distribution was substantially slower, so copying was much harder, some people's books were much more popular in the US than in Britain." Seriously. In the modern world, all that you need is for one person to pay, and make a copy. All other copies can then be made for free. The advantage to being first in this situation is microscopic. > Do I have to point to you to an example of a public domain video game that actually made money? More per developer-hour than a decent commercial game? I'd certainly be interested if more than a tiny handful had pulled this off, yes. > Since when my website stop being visible to the world after digg has made it through? I still get thousands of visitors each month. Thousands of visits per month is hardly going to be of interest to someone looking to make real money. The initial digg spike would be, but I covered that earlier. > Do you have any sense of history whatsoever? When is at any point in history that the US patent system actually function the way it supposed to? Of course you can point at problems. I said that the system would be made much more reasonable, not that it would be fixed. You seem to be thinking I'm coming at this from an idealistic 'I love IP' angle, rather than a pragmatic point of view. I do get that the system causes issues - I just think your alternative is much worse.

kiba 16y ago

I agree that the cost of writing books is high, which is why we have copyright. Your website is a poor example: you wrote something which was popular for maybe a few days/weeks. Your investment was (I assume) repaid over that time. To any viewer of your site, there is no cost to visiting you over visiting any other site, so there is no incentive to find/use an alternative source. I completely agree that, in such a scenario, being the first to market is a sufficient benefit, and that such content doesn't need much in the way of protection. Now, are you simply just glossing over what I have told you about books and British authors? Do I have to point to you to an example of a public domain video game that actually made money? Since when my website stop being visible to the world after digg has made it through? I still get thousands of visitors each month. such as eliminating software patents, would make the US system much more reasonable. Do you have any sense of history whatsoever? When is at any point in history that the US patent system actually function the way it supposed to? I can points to you horror stories about patents gone bad in the 19th century and the music sheet wars as well various submarine patents. It's not some problem that suddenly pop up in some modern time that only impact the last 30 years or so. It's a problem that exists throughout economic history.

AlisdairO 16y ago
I did see what you wrote about British authors, I just didn't really consider it relevant: > Heck, the first mover advantages apply to the American publishing industry centuries ago, when there is no recognition of foreign copyright. In some cases, the British authors actually earn more from their sale of manuscript to American publisher(so they can be first), than they do from royalties in their own country. I read this as "Way back, when distribution was substantially slower, so copying was much harder, some people's books were much more popular in the US than in Britain." Seriously. In the modern world, all that you need is for one person to pay, and make a copy. All other copies can then be made for free. The advantage to being first in this situation is microscopic. > Do I have to point to you to an example of a public domain video game that actually made money? More per developer-hour than a decent commercial game? I'd certainly be interested if more than a tiny handful had pulled this off, yes. > Since when my website stop being visible to the world after digg has made it through? I still get thousands of visitors each month. Thousands of visits per month is hardly going to be of interest to someone looking to make real money. The initial digg spike would be, but I covered that earlier. > Do you have any sense of history whatsoever? When is at any point in history that the US patent system actually function the way it supposed to? Of course you can point at problems. I said that the system would be made much more reasonable, not that it would be fixed. You seem to be thinking I'm coming at this from an idealistic 'I love IP' angle, rather than a pragmatic point of view. I do get that the system causes issues - I just think your alternative is much worse.