4 ms·

Copyrights and patents are quite different to censorship. Copyrights and parents provide assurances that spending large sums of money (millions/billions) to cr

Copyrights and patents are quite different to censorship. Copyrights and parents provide assurances that spending large sums of money (millions/billions) to create new technology won’t be in vain. There are issues with both (too long copyright, patent trolls, obvious patents) but they are better than not having any protections. Why would anyone make a movie or game if it’s going to be almost exclusively pirated? Would anyone invest in new camera technologies, computer graphics techniques/algorithms, motion capture tools, etc? Why would anyone spend millions/billions creating new vaccines and medicines if anyone could copy them and they weren’t going to get paid for their research. Good will only goes so far. You’d only do it if the budget (risk) was peanuts, and unfortunately innovation needs money. People need a roof over their head and food on the table. Which would leave only rich governments with the means to fund such advancements, and their ideology often won’t be aligned to such endeavours.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
> they are better than not having any protections. People keep saying that, but no one comes up with any data to back up the assertion. > Why would anyone make a movie or game if it’s going to be almost exclusively pirated? Because they like it? See: 0AD, Nexuiz, Battle of Wesnoth. > Would anyone invest in new camera technologies, computer graphics techniques/algorithms, motion capture tools, etc? I read someone posing this question and proposing the answer that yes, patrons are going to crowdfund what they want to see. > Why would anyone spend millions/billions creating new vaccines and medicines if anyone could copy them and they weren’t going to get paid for their research. Good will only goes so far. Wait a minute: > they weren’t going to get paid for their research. Lack of protection is not connected to lack of remuneration. US government spends millions/billions to get data from the outer space, despite that data not being protected. > innovation needs money Makes me wonder how the innovation of money came about before there was money to spur innovation.
- yardstick 4y ago
  > Because they like it? See: 0AD, Nexuiz, Battle of Wesnoth. A drop in the ocean compared to all the other games out there. These people could afford to make the games because they have other income sources. So sure, if you can do it, great. They are the exception not the norm. > I read someone posing this question and proposing the answer that yes, patrons are going to crowdfund what they want to see. Most people wouldn’t contribute and just rely on others to donate. Limiting the amount of development and discovery. > Lack of protection is not connected to lack of remuneration. US government spends millions/billions to get data from the outer space, despite that data not being protected. Yes as I said it will then end up being the rich governments that get to pick and choose what’s important. Do you see the US government funding research into safer abortion techniques? Improved methods of detecting defects in babies (so you can consider aborting them?) Just look at the lack of innovation in Soviet Russia vs America. > Makes me wonder how the innovation of money came about before there was money to spur innovation. Innovation needs money or barter or other form of remuneration.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    > A drop in the ocean compared to all the other games out there. You're moving the goalposts. You asked why, and I answered. If you show why they can never possibly become the norm, you might have a starting point for more discussion. > Most people wouldn’t contribute and just rely on others to donate. And that's cool. Most people don't use any given product. It's those who care that are important here. > rich governments that get to pick and choose what’s important I fail to see how that's different from today. The rich are the ones who decide what kind of movies we see, Hollywood being a prime example. They decide what kind of intellectual property laws exist to favor which research or medicines, and they are responsible for ridiculous insulin prices (just look at USA versus anywhere else). If anything, forcing people to self-organize by crowdfunding or following their hearts provides a chance to shift the balance. > Innovation needs money or barter or other form of remuneration. Have you never done anything because you got a kick out of it?
alexvoda 4y ago
> Copyrights and parents provide assurances that spending large sums of money (millions/billions) to create new technology won’t be in vain. There are issues with both (too long copyright, patent trolls, obvious patents) but they are better than not having any protections. That is th biggest lie of intellectual property. Just having a patent or copyright on something does NOT guarantee income. The assurance is a perpetuated myth. Either are only good if you can find someone willing to pay for licences. In many cases, reality has proven that economic actors find it preferable to spend resources to avoid having to pay for licences. See all of the duplicate work in IT an patent proliferation in pharma. Many many patents only ever had an impact on the world after they expired.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  > Many many patents only ever had an impact on the world after they expired. Many trade secrets were lost forever and didn’t impact the world.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    Anything that is worth keeping as a trade secret is still being kept a trade secret. Patents are a tool to disincentivise trade secrets and that is good, but they do a lot more than that and much of it is harmful.
- antonvs 4y ago
  > Either are only good if you can find someone willing to pay for licences. Many more patents are created by companies that are producing the patented products themselves. They're not looking for anyone to pay for licenses, they're looking for protection against people copying what they're doing.

rhn_mk1 4y ago

> they are better than not having any protections. People keep saying that, but no one comes up with any data to back up the assertion. > Why would anyone make a movie or game if it’s going to be almost exclusively pirated? Because they like it? See: 0AD, Nexuiz, Battle of Wesnoth. > Would anyone invest in new camera technologies, computer graphics techniques/algorithms, motion capture tools, etc? I read someone posing this question and proposing the answer that yes, patrons are going to crowdfund what they want to see. > Why would anyone spend millions/billions creating new vaccines and medicines if anyone could copy them and they weren’t going to get paid for their research. Good will only goes so far. Wait a minute: > they weren’t going to get paid for their research. Lack of protection is not connected to lack of remuneration. US government spends millions/billions to get data from the outer space, despite that data not being protected. > innovation needs money Makes me wonder how the innovation of money came about before there was money to spur innovation.

yardstick 4y ago
> Because they like it? See: 0AD, Nexuiz, Battle of Wesnoth. A drop in the ocean compared to all the other games out there. These people could afford to make the games because they have other income sources. So sure, if you can do it, great. They are the exception not the norm. > I read someone posing this question and proposing the answer that yes, patrons are going to crowdfund what they want to see. Most people wouldn’t contribute and just rely on others to donate. Limiting the amount of development and discovery. > Lack of protection is not connected to lack of remuneration. US government spends millions/billions to get data from the outer space, despite that data not being protected. Yes as I said it will then end up being the rich governments that get to pick and choose what’s important. Do you see the US government funding research into safer abortion techniques? Improved methods of detecting defects in babies (so you can consider aborting them?) Just look at the lack of innovation in Soviet Russia vs America. > Makes me wonder how the innovation of money came about before there was money to spur innovation. Innovation needs money or barter or other form of remuneration.
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  > A drop in the ocean compared to all the other games out there. You're moving the goalposts. You asked why, and I answered. If you show why they can never possibly become the norm, you might have a starting point for more discussion. > Most people wouldn’t contribute and just rely on others to donate. And that's cool. Most people don't use any given product. It's those who care that are important here. > rich governments that get to pick and choose what’s important I fail to see how that's different from today. The rich are the ones who decide what kind of movies we see, Hollywood being a prime example. They decide what kind of intellectual property laws exist to favor which research or medicines, and they are responsible for ridiculous insulin prices (just look at USA versus anywhere else). If anything, forcing people to self-organize by crowdfunding or following their hearts provides a chance to shift the balance. > Innovation needs money or barter or other form of remuneration. Have you never done anything because you got a kick out of it?

alexvoda 4y ago

> Copyrights and parents provide assurances that spending large sums of money (millions/billions) to create new technology won’t be in vain. There are issues with both (too long copyright, patent trolls, obvious patents) but they are better than not having any protections. That is th biggest lie of intellectual property. Just having a patent or copyright on something does NOT guarantee income. The assurance is a perpetuated myth. Either are only good if you can find someone willing to pay for licences. In many cases, reality has proven that economic actors find it preferable to spend resources to avoid having to pay for licences. See all of the duplicate work in IT an patent proliferation in pharma. Many many patents only ever had an impact on the world after they expired.

vbezhenar 4y ago
> Many many patents only ever had an impact on the world after they expired. Many trade secrets were lost forever and didn’t impact the world.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  Anything that is worth keeping as a trade secret is still being kept a trade secret. Patents are a tool to disincentivise trade secrets and that is good, but they do a lot more than that and much of it is harmful.
antonvs 4y ago
> Either are only good if you can find someone willing to pay for licences. Many more patents are created by companies that are producing the patented products themselves. They're not looking for anyone to pay for licenses, they're looking for protection against people copying what they're doing.