3 ms·

> Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already

by choo-t 2y ago

> Not everyone wants to engage in all of the PR/marketing stuff that's necessary to make any money from that That's not a difference, PR/Marketing is already used to profit over IP work. > Even if that were sustainable why do you think that content creators should be fully content living of UBI + a few pennies in donations while people working in most other industries should be able to money the same way they previously did? This is assuming creators are fully content on how stuff work now, and I'm betting that's not the case for the vast majority, most of them cannot make end meets with the current system, regardless of how hard they work on their book/song/game/etc, and they have to have a side job just to put food on the table. > IP protection (even if often implemented in a suboptimal way which of course should be improved) have been one of the primaries force behind human progress over that last 300+ years. That's a bold claim. Most of, if not all, human progress on this period is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuel, from the steam engine to the modern use of it, and how it empowered us to do so much more with less human-hour.

boltzmann-brain 2y ago
Indeed, people didn't invent the telephone, television, or typewriter because they thought "wow this would be a great payout for the next 20-80 years for me and my subsequent heirs, let me invent something useful", they did it because they needed a telephone, television, or typewriter, and one didn't exist yet.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Unless this is sarcasm, you base these claim on what exactly? Inventors in the late 1800s were often notoriously litigious and highly motivated by the fact that they could profit from their inventions through patents. The alternative option would have meant that individuals would have had to spend significant amounts of time and resources to "invent" new products, and the only ones to profit would be the companies that had the capacity to manufacture them (while keeping all of the profits for themselves). Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? > they did it because they needed a telephone, There is a pretty extensive section named "The race to the patent office" on Graham Bell's Wikipedia page. Do you think Watt would have successful at building his steam engine had there been no patents that allowed him to attract investors? Or he would have just spent all of his live working as an engineer or a surveyor because he couldn't have afford the significant capital required to develop the engine?
  - boltzmann-brain 2y ago
    > Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? people invent stuff and put it out in the public domain every day, not everyone is a robber baron. look at youtube or hackaday one day, maybe you'll learn something.
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      That's certainly a rational, well thought out and deep argument. Never thought it about it this way...

by choo-t 2y ago

boltzmann-brain 2y ago

Indeed, people didn't invent the telephone, television, or typewriter because they thought "wow this would be a great payout for the next 20-80 years for me and my subsequent heirs, let me invent something useful", they did it because they needed a telephone, television, or typewriter, and one didn't exist yet.

Wytwwww 2y ago
Unless this is sarcasm, you base these claim on what exactly? Inventors in the late 1800s were often notoriously litigious and highly motivated by the fact that they could profit from their inventions through patents. The alternative option would have meant that individuals would have had to spend significant amounts of time and resources to "invent" new products, and the only ones to profit would be the companies that had the capacity to manufacture them (while keeping all of the profits for themselves). Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? > they did it because they needed a telephone, There is a pretty extensive section named "The race to the patent office" on Graham Bell's Wikipedia page. Do you think Watt would have successful at building his steam engine had there been no patents that allowed him to attract investors? Or he would have just spent all of his live working as an engineer or a surveyor because he couldn't have afford the significant capital required to develop the engine?
- boltzmann-brain 2y ago
  > Does that seem like an environment that's highly conducive to innovation? people invent stuff and put it out in the public domain every day, not everyone is a robber baron. look at youtube or hackaday one day, maybe you'll learn something.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    That's certainly a rational, well thought out and deep argument. Never thought it about it this way...