3 ms·
No man is an island. There are explicit influences in things that are created, but there are many implicit influences too. That thing that was created, could i
by hnick 6y ago
No man is an island.
There are explicit influences in things that are created, but there are many implicit influences too. That thing that was created, could it have been made without this society or culture? Could it have been made in a different culture? Didn't we all contribute a little bit to it?
So, while I do agree with your general point that people must have incentive to create and profit/control is one way to do that, my concern is that when things are locked up tight they die and our culture does not benefit from their creation. It would be easy to say that if they are forgotten then maybe they weren't of any use, but history of full of art and science that was not appreciated until much later.
Or conversely, a creation that is a clear product of the zeitgeist could be very influential but if no one can use it, then waiting decades for rights to clear will render it useless.
Imagine if cooking were invented today. Only one individual in the world would be allowed to make sausages without paying royalties.
- tptacek 6y agoAs Rayiner often points out, this argument applies even more powerfully to real property, which was usually expropriated coercively from its original owners.
- hnick 6y agoI'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too, but I don't think it's usually healthy to take things to the extreme. I prefer a middle ground and the original intent (at least as much as is commonly told) around copyright, trade secrets, and patents seemed to be a relatively healthy take on that even if it now needs an update. Depending which path you choose there's a trade-off between how much the creator gets and how much society gets, with varying degrees of control, protection, and communal ownership. The creator gets to choose, but they have a limited set of choices agreed upon by society, rather than individual agreements for every item we buy.
- severine 6y ago> I'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too I think this example might serve: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260
- hnick 6y agoI see. Well that seems to mostly talk about physical property. That makes sense - there is one thing, it takes effort to make more, and only one person can have it at a time. Many people have a problem with equating "theft" to intellectual property since the concept doesn't map directly. If I make a dining table, I shouldn't have to hand it over to my country after a "limited" time (life of the creator plus 70 years now, isn't it?). But perhaps other people should be able to create similar looking tables after a while, to help advance any new techniques or artistic styles used. Ideas can be used while still belonging to the creator. If I try to block that cultural evolution with a license of some kind, I think I'm doing a disservice to the culture that helped me create the table. Anyway, does that still relate to the article? Probably not, I was replying more to the concept that everything is made in isolation so full control should be kept. As a society we already decided that doesn't always apply to IP which books are definitely part of. If we aren't careful in separating the concepts of products and ideas, then we get tractors we aren't allowed to fix.