5 ms·

Is there any evidence that claims of innovation and creativity shutting down without patent and copyright protection are, in fact, correct? It seems like the p

by Zigurd 9y ago

Is there any evidence that claims of innovation and creativity shutting down without patent and copyright protection are, in fact, correct? It seems like the purpose of these supposed protections is bent so far out of share that the threat of "getting what you wish for" carries no weight. Some media might shrink, but other media would grow to take it's place. Neither patent now copyright "ownership" are natural rights like real property ownership. In both philosophical and practical terms, dialing them down to zero and then seeing how much we really need of them might be the best way to find the optimal level.

jacquesm 9y ago
Realize that for instance the GPL is based in ... tadaa ... copyright. And there are a lot more examples like that. If you start throwing rocks that large you have to be very careful about unintended consequences and I'm not sure that I oversee the complexity of it all to the point that I think that a 'let's get rid of it all' solution won't create it's own particular kinds of problems and until we have feel for the kind and magnitude of those problems being careful sounds like a good idea to me. For copyright I would propose slowly rolling back the length bit by bit until we hit some kind of lower limit of practicality, for patents I would start with abolishing software patents and replacing them with copyright, then reduce the time limit on the remainder. And there would have to be something a bit more drastic with respect to patent trolls. It would be a reasonable start and it leaves the door open to eventual total abolishment if that turns out to be feasible and desirable.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  "If you start throwing rocks that large" is a terrible argument. It is the same as arguments about keeping treatments for which there is no clinical evidence just because money, reputation, and public morality might at stake in varying degrees. If overreach in patent and copyright law is a drag on the economy, which it very likely is, it's costing not just freedom, but it amounts to the theft of wider prosperity for the benefit of the connected. Just how much worse than that do you think what are here completely vague and unspecified "unintended consequence" going to get? Be specific.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    If you read the first sentence of the comment you replied to you will see that I gave a very specific example. Copyright and patent law are cornerstones of the economy, removing them outright without due consideration of the consequences is simply irresponsible. A measured approach is advisable and doing this step-by-step would seem to be the wiser course of action. If you feel that radically dropping both copyright and patent law from one day to the next is the way to go then the onus is on you to show that this will not have unintended consequences, not on me. So: be specific.
Solar19 9y ago
We can deduce from the math that drug companies would not spend nearly as much money on R&D without being able to earn it back. Without patents, they would need a new business model that involved much less cost upfront. We could choose to live with more risk as far as new drugs are concerned, less testing, etc. That might not be a net negative. No one would make big expensive movies and GoT type shows without copyright. Copyright has the strongest defense, since the creative work is so obvious, concrete, and unique. I for one wouldn't give away my work in a society without copyright – I'd likely try to found a society with IP protection and then release my work on my terms, which others would hopefully find agreeable.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  Those are not macro-scale arguments, and both have strong counter-arguments: Pharma can still make money manufacturing, distributing, and selling, and it does for out-of-patent products. Their patented products are often born in government and university research labs, and are privatized in what amounts to rent-seeking based on a public good. Anyone who has written books about specific kinds of software development knows that business is perhaps 10% as big as it used to be because manuals and experiential knowledge are freely available. Things change. So should patent and copyright protection. See you at the local stage production of GoT.

by Zigurd 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

Realize that for instance the GPL is based in ... tadaa ... copyright. And there are a lot more examples like that. If you start throwing rocks that large you have to be very careful about unintended consequences and I'm not sure that I oversee the complexity of it all to the point that I think that a 'let's get rid of it all' solution won't create it's own particular kinds of problems and until we have feel for the kind and magnitude of those problems being careful sounds like a good idea to me. For copyright I would propose slowly rolling back the length bit by bit until we hit some kind of lower limit of practicality, for patents I would start with abolishing software patents and replacing them with copyright, then reduce the time limit on the remainder. And there would have to be something a bit more drastic with respect to patent trolls. It would be a reasonable start and it leaves the door open to eventual total abolishment if that turns out to be feasible and desirable.

Zigurd 9y ago
"If you start throwing rocks that large" is a terrible argument. It is the same as arguments about keeping treatments for which there is no clinical evidence just because money, reputation, and public morality might at stake in varying degrees. If overreach in patent and copyright law is a drag on the economy, which it very likely is, it's costing not just freedom, but it amounts to the theft of wider prosperity for the benefit of the connected. Just how much worse than that do you think what are here completely vague and unspecified "unintended consequence" going to get? Be specific.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  If you read the first sentence of the comment you replied to you will see that I gave a very specific example. Copyright and patent law are cornerstones of the economy, removing them outright without due consideration of the consequences is simply irresponsible. A measured approach is advisable and doing this step-by-step would seem to be the wiser course of action. If you feel that radically dropping both copyright and patent law from one day to the next is the way to go then the onus is on you to show that this will not have unintended consequences, not on me. So: be specific.

Solar19 9y ago

We can deduce from the math that drug companies would not spend nearly as much money on R&D without being able to earn it back. Without patents, they would need a new business model that involved much less cost upfront. We could choose to live with more risk as far as new drugs are concerned, less testing, etc. That might not be a net negative. No one would make big expensive movies and GoT type shows without copyright. Copyright has the strongest defense, since the creative work is so obvious, concrete, and unique. I for one wouldn't give away my work in a society without copyright – I'd likely try to found a society with IP protection and then release my work on my terms, which others would hopefully find agreeable.

Zigurd 9y ago
Those are not macro-scale arguments, and both have strong counter-arguments: Pharma can still make money manufacturing, distributing, and selling, and it does for out-of-patent products. Their patented products are often born in government and university research labs, and are privatized in what amounts to rent-seeking based on a public good. Anyone who has written books about specific kinds of software development knows that business is perhaps 10% as big as it used to be because manuals and experiential knowledge are freely available. Things change. So should patent and copyright protection. See you at the local stage production of GoT.