3 ms·

That was the stated purpose. Other purposes didn't make it into the law and never should have made it. Public doesn't need to grant some control over informatio

by shmerl 6y ago

That was the stated purpose. Other purposes didn't make it into the law and never should have made it. Public doesn't need to grant some control over information to hoarders of IP so they could make profit on it if it doesn't benefit the public. Copyright is always a close kin to censorship and is unhealthy in general, unless there is some trade-off that public gets in return. It should never be "to allow profit for IP holders" idea.

gamblor956 6y ago
Copyright law, and trade protection law, has existed for hundreds of years, and indeed patent protection was one of the things that gave England hundreds of years of technological advantage over its larger adversaries in France and Spain. (The period from which England benefit lasted for hundreds of years, the actual individual advantages were a few years to a few decades depending on the invention at issue.)
- shmerl 6y ago
  We are talking about the purpose of them. And to burst the bubble here, it's not the profit of the IP holders. Patent law can also be seen as something that holds back progress. So it's quite moot to claim that it's always useful.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    If you want to argue against the past 600 years of human history in favor of the imaginary history in your head, that's your prerogative. Patent law can also be seen as something that holds back progress. So it's quite moot to claim that it's always useful Patent law protections in England absolutely were a factor in England's dominance of France and Spain, despite the hugely disparate sizes and resources of those countries. Moreover, the US's early embrace of patents is why so much of modern life can be traced directly to inventions created in the US. Electricity, modern manufacturing, computers, the radio, television, air flight, all traceable to private individuals and companies incentivized to invent in the US because the patent system rewarded them for doing so.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      I argue against demagoguery. Harm of abusive patents is well documented and it totally held back progress more than once. So your argument that patent law is necessary for progress is outright false. It could be useful for progress and it could also be harmful.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  "No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?", by Frank Thadeusz at Der Spiegel. Eckhard Höffner explores the question of whether Germany's lack of any real copyright law served to accelerate the spread of knowledge and industry [O]nly 1,000 new works appeared annually in England [during the Enlightenment] -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900. Even more startling is the factor Höffner believes caused this development -- in his view, it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom. Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire. The emergence of Germany as a major technical and industrial power by the end of the 19th century was quite remarkable, considering it was a not only agrarian, but not even a single state. German in 1800 was a collection of independent principalities and states, corresponding roughly to the present-day states of unified Germany plus Austria, and parts of Switzerland, France, and Poland. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-l...

by shmerl 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

Copyright law, and trade protection law, has existed for hundreds of years, and indeed patent protection was one of the things that gave England hundreds of years of technological advantage over its larger adversaries in France and Spain. (The period from which England benefit lasted for hundreds of years, the actual individual advantages were a few years to a few decades depending on the invention at issue.)

shmerl 6y ago
We are talking about the purpose of them. And to burst the bubble here, it's not the profit of the IP holders. Patent law can also be seen as something that holds back progress. So it's quite moot to claim that it's always useful.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  If you want to argue against the past 600 years of human history in favor of the imaginary history in your head, that's your prerogative. Patent law can also be seen as something that holds back progress. So it's quite moot to claim that it's always useful Patent law protections in England absolutely were a factor in England's dominance of France and Spain, despite the hugely disparate sizes and resources of those countries. Moreover, the US's early embrace of patents is why so much of modern life can be traced directly to inventions created in the US. Electricity, modern manufacturing, computers, the radio, television, air flight, all traceable to private individuals and companies incentivized to invent in the US because the patent system rewarded them for doing so.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    I argue against demagoguery. Harm of abusive patents is well documented and it totally held back progress more than once. So your argument that patent law is necessary for progress is outright false. It could be useful for progress and it could also be harmful.
dredmorbius 6y ago
"No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion?", by Frank Thadeusz at Der Spiegel. Eckhard Höffner explores the question of whether Germany's lack of any real copyright law served to accelerate the spread of knowledge and industry [O]nly 1,000 new works appeared annually in England [during the Enlightenment] -- 10 times fewer than in Germany -- and this was not without consequences. Höffner believes it was the chronically weak book market that caused England, the colonial power, to fritter away its head start within the span of a century, while the underdeveloped agrarian state of Germany caught up rapidly, becoming an equally developed industrial nation by 1900. Even more startling is the factor Höffner believes caused this development -- in his view, it was none other than copyright law, which was established early in Great Britain, in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom. Germany, on the other hand, didn't bother with the concept of copyright for a long time. Prussia, then by far Germany's biggest state, introduced a copyright law in 1837, but Germany's continued division into small states meant that it was hardly possible to enforce the law throughout the empire. The emergence of Germany as a major technical and industrial power by the end of the 19th century was quite remarkable, considering it was a not only agrarian, but not even a single state. German in 1800 was a collection of independent principalities and states, corresponding roughly to the present-day states of unified Germany plus Austria, and parts of Switzerland, France, and Poland. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-l...