5 ms·

Even if something is allowed to be done by everybody it doesn't mean it can be done by everybody. Just look at programming. Lack of ip(patents) shifts the power

Even if something is allowed to be done by everybody it doesn't mean it can be done by everybody. Just look at programming. Lack of ip(patents) shifts the power from those with patents+lawyers to those with skills (workers). Innovators, even when they are a group, are always okay because they have the skills to perform.

est31 7y ago
Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Lack of IP doesn't shift the power to innovators, it shifts it to the people with printing presses, with large manufacturing plants that can scale, apple music, etc etc. IP is the very basis for compensation of innovators.
- Drakim 7y ago
  The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. It makes sense that if you make a comic book about a superhero named Jumpman, printing presses shouldn't be able to just 1:1 copy your product and sell it. They also shoudln't be able to use your Jumpman character in their own works. But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. The only reason we have anything public at all is because most of these inventions happened before the dawn of oppressive IP laws.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. You can't, in fact, copyright any of those things. Were they novel, the first two might be the kind of thing to qualify for utility patents, and the last is presumably a loose description of an actual Apple design patent.
  - est31 7y ago
    > The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. I fully agree. Software patents for example should be abolished, and we should get shorter terms on copyright (20 years after death of creator or 80 years after publication, whatever comes sooner would be a good choice). But the very basic concept of copyright and patent law is still good for the individual creators as well as the commons. Abolishing it does not benefit the creators in general, and only shifts power away from them.
- hrktb 7y ago
  Not disagreeing, but hasn’t the power shifted to people with printing presses either way ? I mean that producers are now strongly bound to distributors, and companies like Disney basically own everything from top to mostly bottom (they’re getting there with their streaming service). In today’s world I don’t see “little guys” getting practical benefits by virtue of IP. Is there still a baby in the bath water?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Yes, as you intimate the forerunner to the Statue of Anne, the Licensing of the Press Act, was concerned with restricting who was allowed to own the means to print, and what was allowed to be printed. But I don't think copyright amendments have been about protecting creators, or the public domain, for some time.
- chongli 7y ago
  Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Not true. Copyright originally existed to give governments control over owners of presses in an effort to stop printing of dissenting material. It had nothing to do with compensation for authors.
  - ionised 7y ago
    And in that sense, the purpose of copyright has never changed. It is still used to decide who gets access to what information, with all the complicated licensing arrangements and insane life of author plus 70 years terms.

est31 7y ago

Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Lack of IP doesn't shift the power to innovators, it shifts it to the people with printing presses, with large manufacturing plants that can scale, apple music, etc etc. IP is the very basis for compensation of innovators.

Drakim 7y ago
The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. It makes sense that if you make a comic book about a superhero named Jumpman, printing presses shouldn't be able to just 1:1 copy your product and sell it. They also shoudln't be able to use your Jumpman character in their own works. But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. The only reason we have anything public at all is because most of these inventions happened before the dawn of oppressive IP laws.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. You can't, in fact, copyright any of those things. Were they novel, the first two might be the kind of thing to qualify for utility patents, and the last is presumably a loose description of an actual Apple design patent.
- est31 7y ago
  > The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. I fully agree. Software patents for example should be abolished, and we should get shorter terms on copyright (20 years after death of creator or 80 years after publication, whatever comes sooner would be a good choice). But the very basic concept of copyright and patent law is still good for the individual creators as well as the commons. Abolishing it does not benefit the creators in general, and only shifts power away from them.
hrktb 7y ago
Not disagreeing, but hasn’t the power shifted to people with printing presses either way ? I mean that producers are now strongly bound to distributors, and companies like Disney basically own everything from top to mostly bottom (they’re getting there with their streaming service). In today’s world I don’t see “little guys” getting practical benefits by virtue of IP. Is there still a baby in the bath water?
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Yes, as you intimate the forerunner to the Statue of Anne, the Licensing of the Press Act, was concerned with restricting who was allowed to own the means to print, and what was allowed to be printed. But I don't think copyright amendments have been about protecting creators, or the public domain, for some time.
chongli 7y ago
Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Not true. Copyright originally existed to give governments control over owners of presses in an effort to stop printing of dissenting material. It had nothing to do with compensation for authors.
- ionised 7y ago
  And in that sense, the purpose of copyright has never changed. It is still used to decide who gets access to what information, with all the complicated licensing arrangements and insane life of author plus 70 years terms.