3 ms·
> I think we have overwhelming data at this point. I mean, I disagree with your conclusion, I think "aboloishing" copyright is a bad idea. But I even more str
by edanm 5y ago
> I think we have overwhelming data at this point.
I mean, I disagree with your conclusion, I think "aboloishing" copyright is a bad idea.
But I even more strongly disagree with how you phrase this. "Overwhelming" data? What are you talking about? There's a valid debate to be had, but if you're starting form the assumption that it's completely clear that your way is right, I think it's going to be pretty hard to convince anyone else of this since almost everyone disagrees with this idea.
- breck 5y ago> "Overwhelming" data? What are you talking about? Well first I am a big believer in always building more datasets, and I have been involved with some efforts to built datasets on the copyright issue, and expect there to be many more. But this is a "pebbles" and "planets" type of situation, where the value of the public domain creations dwarf those of the copyrighted ones (American Online vs The World Wide Web; Microsoft Windows vs Linux; Patented medicines vs public domain ones). It's not that public domain innovations are a little bit better, they are OOM better. In the long run it's no contest. So I think building bigger and better datasets across all domains is important, but this is not going to be a close call. I thought I might have a blind spot in medicine, but then spent a few years in biomedical research and realized that nope, the copyrighted and patented stuff in there is mostly junk compared to the public domain innovation.