5 ms·

> The other way around it is not OK, because from proprietarizing ideas, there is no benefit for society You say this as if proprietary rules (ie. copyright an

> The other way around it is not OK, because from proprietarizing ideas, there is no benefit for society You say this as if proprietary rules (ie. copyright and patents) weren't intentionally designed to incentivize knowledge creation & sharing by ensuring compensation for innovation. Creators can't pay bills with societal advancements and research progress. This is a really shallow "proprietary = bad" ideological take that I expect to see on the black & white pages of Stallman's website, not an (at least partly) entrepreneurial forum.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
(I apologize in advance, but I have to) tired: IP = bad wired: IP rules are "intentionally designed to incentivize knowledge creation & sharing by ensuring compensation for innovation" inspired: above isn't true in practice; IP rules have been thoroughly gamed, and their primary job is protecting monopolistic behavior, even if it means keeping knowledge suppressed past the point it becomes irrelevant or useless Copyright and patents, as practiced today, have mutated into a malignant form. That doesn't mean the idea is bad, just that it was taken too far - instead of creating idea-generating pump, we've ended up with toolkits for extracting rent from society and creating wasteful artificial scarcities.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  Cory said it best: https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/. Or at least I have not found it elsewhere being said in a better way yet.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  Hah I appreciate the meme and can appreciate arguments that IP rules can be improved but frankly, tearing down IP rules because of some malignant outcomes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At any rate, this is certainly more salient than "because from proprietarizing ideas, there is no benefit for society" which could be a quote from The Onion where the article picture is someone typing this on their iPhone.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
I don't think it is as shallow as you make it seem at all. Whatever technological / knowledge advancement any entity holds proprietary could probably be of more use when being shared with the world. Our technology enables us to have this kind of knowledge society, where knowledge is accessible at all times almost anywhere. I don't think that stopping knowledge from spreading can be a net gain, just because it enables a few selected individuals at some entity to gain from keeping it a secret. Such a thing should not be the basis of a business.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  It seems that shallow to me, "rules on knowledge = bad" which you've simply repeated here. There's no thought given to how knowledge & innovation is created in the first place and how free use without compensation can damage innovation, resulting in a poorer society with less knowledge overall. There's no understanding that proprietary rules aren't a permanent block on knowledge but rather a limited embargo that often (eg. in the case of patents) requires the sharing of knowledge as part of it. Apparently all you have to say is "stopping knowledge from spreading = bad", yet in the same breath you chastise businesses for taking from academia without returning any form of compensation. I'm not in academia and I'm not sure if you are, but best of luck to them. Academia is shrinking/slowing as they beg for government scraps and flee to proprietary business.
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    No, you are misunderstanding the point I am making. I am actually thinking in depth about this, but I have a different view of it than you. I will try to describe it in more detail in the following: The idea is, that it is very unlikely, that there can be a situation, in which society as a whole gains more from only one actor having the knowledge, than the knowledge being available for everyone (and subsequently more people being able to work on progress using that knowledge). If only one actor has the knowledge, this will most likely delay progress, because this actor does not need to innovate. They can sit on their behind and profit from that knowledge, which they do not share. In comparison, if the knowledge was shared, then it would be about being the first to get to the next level, in order to be the first, who can adapt to progress. The first one to offer a new service based on that knowledge or some technology resulting from it. If you are the one making the progress, you will have a head start on everyone else. (If you want an up-to-date example: Vaccines. If big pharma businesses had to share all knowledge during the whole research process, it might be, that we could have a better vaccine and could have had it earlier than we actually did.) So yes, I see stopping knowledge from spreading as a behavior, that has a net negative impact, when compared to a society, where we do not stop knowledge from spreading. Most certainly a society that stops knowledge from spreading will fall behind. Then another point is, that I am not chastizing businesses for taking from academia without returning any form of compensation, as you state. I am chastizing them for taking and then making some profit of of unshared knowledge, that they gain. It is not about paying money or compensating in any way academia, but about sharing their gained knowledge with society, with the public. I am thinking of a quite different business world here, where business actually and exclusively serve the purpose of advancing society, as so many of them claim. This is brought about by having a strict knowledge sharing policy and providing actual services, instead of holding people captive, with their proprietary tech and secret knowledge. If a competitor surpasses them, great! Someone found a better way! Society advanced! That is the kind of mindset I am thinking of. Businesses in my opinion should not exist to make individuals rich based on profits, which are based on keeping knowledge away from others, who could use it well, even if for a competing product. If a business makes anyone a rich person, then it should be based on that business providing beneficial services for society. It could happen, that a business is created merely for providing a narrow service on top of some tech, and never makes any progress. It never gains any new insight or knowledge. Perhaps, because this business does not have a research and development department. That is totally fine! As long as people find that service useful, such a business can exist. It might not grow infinitely. Might even remain a small specialized business. Perhaps this business has to evolve the service at some point, but it can still be on top of existing public knowledge. For example a business could be to set up IT infrastructure for private or other businesses. That is a lot of work, which not everyone wants to do themselves. And then to make it reliable for the specific use case ... Yet there is no new research being made by that company. It is the good quality of their work and happy customers, that generate their income. They never return anything to academia and I am not criticizing them for it. I do not want to stick to what exists today and how things work today. I am imagining how a better situation could look like and how it could work. This is about discussing ideas and not about how any particular business, that exists today, could be saved, if the business world was restructured in this way from one day to the next. It is quite likely, that many businesses would fail, without keeping knowledge a secret. I say good riddance!

TeMPOraL 5y ago

(I apologize in advance, but I have to) tired: IP = bad wired: IP rules are "intentionally designed to incentivize knowledge creation & sharing by ensuring compensation for innovation" inspired: above isn't true in practice; IP rules have been thoroughly gamed, and their primary job is protecting monopolistic behavior, even if it means keeping knowledge suppressed past the point it becomes irrelevant or useless Copyright and patents, as practiced today, have mutated into a malignant form. That doesn't mean the idea is bad, just that it was taken too far - instead of creating idea-generating pump, we've ended up with toolkits for extracting rent from society and creating wasteful artificial scarcities.

zelphirkalt 5y ago
Cory said it best: https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/. Or at least I have not found it elsewhere being said in a better way yet.
themacguffinman 5y ago
Hah I appreciate the meme and can appreciate arguments that IP rules can be improved but frankly, tearing down IP rules because of some malignant outcomes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At any rate, this is certainly more salient than "because from proprietarizing ideas, there is no benefit for society" which could be a quote from The Onion where the article picture is someone typing this on their iPhone.

zelphirkalt 5y ago

I don't think it is as shallow as you make it seem at all. Whatever technological / knowledge advancement any entity holds proprietary could probably be of more use when being shared with the world. Our technology enables us to have this kind of knowledge society, where knowledge is accessible at all times almost anywhere. I don't think that stopping knowledge from spreading can be a net gain, just because it enables a few selected individuals at some entity to gain from keeping it a secret. Such a thing should not be the basis of a business.

themacguffinman 5y ago
It seems that shallow to me, "rules on knowledge = bad" which you've simply repeated here. There's no thought given to how knowledge & innovation is created in the first place and how free use without compensation can damage innovation, resulting in a poorer society with less knowledge overall. There's no understanding that proprietary rules aren't a permanent block on knowledge but rather a limited embargo that often (eg. in the case of patents) requires the sharing of knowledge as part of it. Apparently all you have to say is "stopping knowledge from spreading = bad", yet in the same breath you chastise businesses for taking from academia without returning any form of compensation. I'm not in academia and I'm not sure if you are, but best of luck to them. Academia is shrinking/slowing as they beg for government scraps and flee to proprietary business.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  No, you are misunderstanding the point I am making. I am actually thinking in depth about this, but I have a different view of it than you. I will try to describe it in more detail in the following: The idea is, that it is very unlikely, that there can be a situation, in which society as a whole gains more from only one actor having the knowledge, than the knowledge being available for everyone (and subsequently more people being able to work on progress using that knowledge). If only one actor has the knowledge, this will most likely delay progress, because this actor does not need to innovate. They can sit on their behind and profit from that knowledge, which they do not share. In comparison, if the knowledge was shared, then it would be about being the first to get to the next level, in order to be the first, who can adapt to progress. The first one to offer a new service based on that knowledge or some technology resulting from it. If you are the one making the progress, you will have a head start on everyone else. (If you want an up-to-date example: Vaccines. If big pharma businesses had to share all knowledge during the whole research process, it might be, that we could have a better vaccine and could have had it earlier than we actually did.) So yes, I see stopping knowledge from spreading as a behavior, that has a net negative impact, when compared to a society, where we do not stop knowledge from spreading. Most certainly a society that stops knowledge from spreading will fall behind. Then another point is, that I am not chastizing businesses for taking from academia without returning any form of compensation, as you state. I am chastizing them for taking and then making some profit of of unshared knowledge, that they gain. It is not about paying money or compensating in any way academia, but about sharing their gained knowledge with society, with the public. I am thinking of a quite different business world here, where business actually and exclusively serve the purpose of advancing society, as so many of them claim. This is brought about by having a strict knowledge sharing policy and providing actual services, instead of holding people captive, with their proprietary tech and secret knowledge. If a competitor surpasses them, great! Someone found a better way! Society advanced! That is the kind of mindset I am thinking of. Businesses in my opinion should not exist to make individuals rich based on profits, which are based on keeping knowledge away from others, who could use it well, even if for a competing product. If a business makes anyone a rich person, then it should be based on that business providing beneficial services for society. It could happen, that a business is created merely for providing a narrow service on top of some tech, and never makes any progress. It never gains any new insight or knowledge. Perhaps, because this business does not have a research and development department. That is totally fine! As long as people find that service useful, such a business can exist. It might not grow infinitely. Might even remain a small specialized business. Perhaps this business has to evolve the service at some point, but it can still be on top of existing public knowledge. For example a business could be to set up IT infrastructure for private or other businesses. That is a lot of work, which not everyone wants to do themselves. And then to make it reliable for the specific use case ... Yet there is no new research being made by that company. It is the good quality of their work and happy customers, that generate their income. They never return anything to academia and I am not criticizing them for it. I do not want to stick to what exists today and how things work today. I am imagining how a better situation could look like and how it could work. This is about discussing ideas and not about how any particular business, that exists today, could be saved, if the business world was restructured in this way from one day to the next. It is quite likely, that many businesses would fail, without keeping knowledge a secret. I say good riddance!