2 ms·
I don't agree that's a non sequitur. We typically sell "access" to the idea, even though the supply of access is infinite. If you want to account for human labo
by oehpr 6y ago
I don't agree that's a non sequitur. We typically sell "access" to the idea, even though the supply of access is infinite. If you want to account for human labor and cost, then you're describing novel ideas, not "an idea". novel ideas are scarce, access to an idea is not.
That may seem pedantic, but that distinction is the thing we charge for access on.
The reason I'm harping on this is to make it black and white crystal clear, that the existing system we are using is a kludge. It would be shocking if such a system was flatly the best way to do things.
No idea what's better, but there are much smarter people out there than me.
- hakfoo 6y agoThe other side of the coin is that creating a market for creative work optimizes for commercializability, not necessarily any other attributes we'd consciously prefer. How much effort in the medical industry is devoted to me-too treatments that don't really expand our therapeutic vocabulary? How many writers were focusing on writing Law & Order: Food Truck Inspectors Unit instead of something more distinctive? I think that maybe we need to look into UBI for creatives: we'll pay you a comfortable living as long as you're regularly producing some deliverables/signs of progress, but you don't get to drag everyone else down with patents and copyrights when you're done. We could probably finance a lot of singers at 50k per year for the cost of one Rolling Stones tour.