4 ms·
You are totally missing the point - the point made in the previous post was, that intellectual labour should be rewarded with some sort of IP, so that the creat
by ClumsyPilot 3y ago
You are totally missing the point - the point made in the previous post was, that intellectual labour should be rewarded with some sort of IP, so that the creator of it is rewarded. The categorisation of different types of IP is not fundamental.
The counterpoint I made is that we do not reward some types of intellectual labour at all. And some of the greatest contributions to humanity are of the type, that is not rewarded. So the argument as initially presented is flawed:
Either the authors of intellectual labour do not need to be rewarded with ownership, perhaps other types of compensation is more appropriate
OR
Authors of scientific intellectual labour are currently unfairly exploited and should be compensated
- toss1 3y ago>>Authors of scientific intellectual labour are currently unfairly exploited and should be compensated Yup, that is very true. And it's why a number of universities are creating patent offices to help their scientists commercialize their works (with the university getting a share; I'm not up to date on how fair the sharing is)
- pikminguy 3y agoI understood your previous post to be arguing against copyright on the basis of scientific work not counting. If you meant copyright is fine but the way we compensate scientific work is bad then I agree. It's a complex issue because I don't think you should be able to copyright a factual claim but I do think scientific work should be better compensated. I don't know of a solution to that problem but I would be eager to hear one.