4 ms·

I think it is hopefully clear to a̶n̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ most people that economic model based on the so-called intellectual property has mostly failed, at least internati

by oytis 5y ago

I think it is hopefully clear to a̶n̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ most people that economic model based on the so-called intellectual property has mostly failed, at least internationally. For FOSS that means that the difference between copyleft and permissive licenses will diminish - but it was the trend anyway, apart from legacy projects copyleft is mostly used in for-profit projects to sell exemptions. To me GPL indeed seems like a child of American legal cultures that has little chance of surviving internationally. As of China, so far it shows little ability to lead in the open source world, too little compared to the size of the industry in China in any case. I'm not going to make up theories on whether it is because of its isolationist culture, or lack of political freedom or just a temporary thing, but as of now, I don't see any risks of hostile takeover of open source by dictatorships. They will use it of course, regardless of whether we allow them to, but that is kind of the idea behind open source, isn't it?

watwut 5y ago
It is not clear to me that economic model based on the intellectual property has mostly failed.
- oytis 5y ago
  That clearly proves me wrong, fixed.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Would you be willing to explain why it is so clear to most people according to you?
    - accurrent 5y ago
      I'm not the OP but I'll have a go. 1. IP requires enforcement and commonly agreed upon principles. In a global economy different states will have different rules. We all know that there are rogue states and entities out there who may choose not to enforce IP rules. Furthermore IP enforcement requires money. Even in countries where rule of law is the norm, it is often the case where companies making more money have more power to bend the rules. Hence, using IP as a business model is unsustainable. 2. IP in its nature is not proprietary. Two people can arrive at the same conclusion therefore you can't actually "hide" any information successfully.
      - watwut 5y ago
        That sounds to me like speculation on why it might fail in the long term and not explaination why it clearly already failed. I am not arguing that copyright as exists now is some universal good. It just dont seem failed to me at all. It generates a lot of money. Countries that ostensibly dont respect it seem to be mostly poor - their people dont have money to pay much in the first place.
    - oytis 5y ago
      There are few software companies left that rely on copyright for their business - most move their software to the cloud where it can't be copied easily. It still kind of works in B2B market, because it's harder to hide there, but it's limited to the Western countries, and as money distributes more evenly around the globe challenges will become more profound there as well. Not to say that most people live in countries where copyright laws are either ignored altogether or enforced selectively.
inglor_cz 5y ago
As a writer, I am glad that I hold IP to my books and no one can rip them off just wantonly. I would agree that current IP protections are too extensive - I would be fine if copyright protection lasted just 20 years or if it required payment of yearly fees after a certain period - but its complete absence would upend a lot of the creative industry. Writing books is at least cheap, so we would still have hobbyist authors; but making a movie can be darn expensive. Who would invest into a next Lord of the Rings adaptation without IP? Well, yeah, maybe Musk would. But then you end up with the old patronage system, where artists need to be on good terms with the ultra-rich.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > Writing books is at least cheap, so we would still have hobbyist authors; Arguably, all current commercially unsuccessful authors (and there are a lot of them) are hobbyists as well. > but making a movie can be darn expensive. Who would invest into a next Lord of the Rings adaptation without IP? > Well, yeah, maybe Musk would. But then you end up with the old patronage system, where artists need to be on good terms with the ultra-rich. I'm reasonably certain that part of the gap would be filled by crowdfunding (or the Street Performer Protocol), but we've already seen how that works best for creators that are already successful and have a following (or at least some sort of platform) or who have zeroed in on a previously unidentified and unserved niche. It doesn't work so well for "midlist" creators working within established genres. Distributed patronage (eg. Patreon) is another option that can in theory work for the latter, though I don't think there have been all that many success stories there. Most Patreons seem to fund the creator's coffee budget, and not much more.
- oytis 5y ago
  Does it also make sense economically, i.e. comparing how much time you put in vs how much money you get back?

by oytis 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

It is not clear to me that economic model based on the intellectual property has mostly failed.

oytis 5y ago
That clearly proves me wrong, fixed.
- watwut 5y ago
  Would you be willing to explain why it is so clear to most people according to you?
  - accurrent 5y ago
    I'm not the OP but I'll have a go. 1. IP requires enforcement and commonly agreed upon principles. In a global economy different states will have different rules. We all know that there are rogue states and entities out there who may choose not to enforce IP rules. Furthermore IP enforcement requires money. Even in countries where rule of law is the norm, it is often the case where companies making more money have more power to bend the rules. Hence, using IP as a business model is unsustainable. 2. IP in its nature is not proprietary. Two people can arrive at the same conclusion therefore you can't actually "hide" any information successfully.
    - watwut 5y ago
      That sounds to me like speculation on why it might fail in the long term and not explaination why it clearly already failed. I am not arguing that copyright as exists now is some universal good. It just dont seem failed to me at all. It generates a lot of money. Countries that ostensibly dont respect it seem to be mostly poor - their people dont have money to pay much in the first place.
  - oytis 5y ago
    There are few software companies left that rely on copyright for their business - most move their software to the cloud where it can't be copied easily. It still kind of works in B2B market, because it's harder to hide there, but it's limited to the Western countries, and as money distributes more evenly around the globe challenges will become more profound there as well. Not to say that most people live in countries where copyright laws are either ignored altogether or enforced selectively.

inglor_cz 5y ago

As a writer, I am glad that I hold IP to my books and no one can rip them off just wantonly. I would agree that current IP protections are too extensive - I would be fine if copyright protection lasted just 20 years or if it required payment of yearly fees after a certain period - but its complete absence would upend a lot of the creative industry. Writing books is at least cheap, so we would still have hobbyist authors; but making a movie can be darn expensive. Who would invest into a next Lord of the Rings adaptation without IP? Well, yeah, maybe Musk would. But then you end up with the old patronage system, where artists need to be on good terms with the ultra-rich.

webmaven 5y ago
> Writing books is at least cheap, so we would still have hobbyist authors; Arguably, all current commercially unsuccessful authors (and there are a lot of them) are hobbyists as well. > but making a movie can be darn expensive. Who would invest into a next Lord of the Rings adaptation without IP? > Well, yeah, maybe Musk would. But then you end up with the old patronage system, where artists need to be on good terms with the ultra-rich. I'm reasonably certain that part of the gap would be filled by crowdfunding (or the Street Performer Protocol), but we've already seen how that works best for creators that are already successful and have a following (or at least some sort of platform) or who have zeroed in on a previously unidentified and unserved niche. It doesn't work so well for "midlist" creators working within established genres. Distributed patronage (eg. Patreon) is another option that can in theory work for the latter, though I don't think there have been all that many success stories there. Most Patreons seem to fund the creator's coffee budget, and not much more.
oytis 5y ago
Does it also make sense economically, i.e. comparing how much time you put in vs how much money you get back?