4 ms·

So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent? Copyright is more than paying "fair share," the enforcement

So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent? Copyright is more than paying "fair share," the enforcement apparatus puts a large opportunity cost which is ordinarily unaccounted for. I am less likely to innovate and iterate if I have to navigate patents and copyright compliance, as all of that is administrative cost and the legal risks are well and above R&D costs. I argue it creates an environment of not bothering, when one has to tip-toe on egg shells to avoid massive liabilities in suits coming out of nowhere from trolls and such. If I built a binary Linux distro, you know damn well ZFS will be in the kernel, it will be hosted on only .onion and .i2p, and all Linux Foundation and Oracle Corp C&D emails will be published with sensibly witty lampooning comments.

BobbyJo 2y ago
It sounds like one party is getting all the advantage of a piece of IP without having to make any investment in it's generation, which is a competitive advantage.
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  Or that you can't squat ideas and memes, and you actually have to materially produce to get [super]wealthy.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    And you should never publish your new ideas and memes, to ensure your keep your technological advantage.
    - alwayslikethis 2y ago
      That's the idea behind patents. You get a period of what is essentially monopoly license in exchange for the idea being made available to the public. The issue with copyright is that it lasts far too long now compared to the original length (14 years in the US), which throws off the balance.
throwaway14356 2y ago
it doesn't sound like it but it is it. The talking point is always focused on rewarding those who did the work but that I have to pay to enforce the scheme and the cost of going without if we don't get permission is also not important at all. Funny as hell to pay so that it can be assured I don't get to use something. I think we should find ways to at least judge some technology valuable enough to buy it into the public domain at sensible but non-negotiable rates.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent? Even this feeble pitch would hold a lot more weight if companies either couldn't own copyright or couldn't purchase the copyright. As it is it's more like a corrupt rent-extraction scheme with government backing.
ywvcbk 2y ago
> So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent If you’re ignoring copyright and IP rights while catching up? That’s just freeloading, you need someone to pay for all the research/innovation. > if I have to navigate patents Albeit still more likely than if you have no funding? Investors don’t have as many incentives to provide that if they can’t get a return. Of course you need a balance, over restrictive IP protection might be as bad as not having it at all.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > If you’re ignoring copyright and IP rights while catching up? That’s just freeloading, you need someone to pay for all the research/innovation. This is not true. Everyone, everywhere, who created any thing ever, built it on the backs of [millennia of] previous creators. History teaches us that innovation flows in the absence of restrictions - including rent-seeking. Conversely, modern history teaches us that IP gets in the way everywhere it can.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    Innovation and progress happened at a snail’s pace (by modern standards) before IP rights (at least rudimentary) became a thing. Not saying there was a causal relationship necessarily but if we look at some of the most important inventions like the steam engine it’s unlikely that it could have been invented and perfected at the time it was without patents. It’s rather [extremely] simple and obvious , generally R&D requires significant investment. If you can’t get any return on your investment, you won’t invest. Of course there needs to be a balance to minimize rent seeking beyond a certain point.
    - throwaway14356 2y ago
      From what I understand, it was possible to build fantastic steam engines only after the patents expired. Before everyone was sitting on pats of it unwilling to cooperate like stubborn children.
  - jorvi 2y ago

BobbyJo 2y ago

It sounds like one party is getting all the advantage of a piece of IP without having to make any investment in it's generation, which is a competitive advantage.

rustcleaner 2y ago
Or that you can't squat ideas and memes, and you actually have to materially produce to get [super]wealthy.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  And you should never publish your new ideas and memes, to ensure your keep your technological advantage.
  - alwayslikethis 2y ago
    That's the idea behind patents. You get a period of what is essentially monopoly license in exchange for the idea being made available to the public. The issue with copyright is that it lasts far too long now compared to the original length (14 years in the US), which throws off the balance.

throwaway14356 2y ago

it doesn't sound like it but it is it. The talking point is always focused on rewarding those who did the work but that I have to pay to enforce the scheme and the cost of going without if we don't get permission is also not important at all. Funny as hell to pay so that it can be assured I don't get to use something. I think we should find ways to at least judge some technology valuable enough to buy it into the public domain at sensible but non-negotiable rates.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent? Even this feeble pitch would hold a lot more weight if companies either couldn't own copyright or couldn't purchase the copyright. As it is it's more like a corrupt rent-extraction scheme with government backing.

ywvcbk 2y ago

> So what it sounds like is copyright stifles societal growth to ensure the originator gets his rent If you’re ignoring copyright and IP rights while catching up? That’s just freeloading, you need someone to pay for all the research/innovation. > if I have to navigate patents Albeit still more likely than if you have no funding? Investors don’t have as many incentives to provide that if they can’t get a return. Of course you need a balance, over restrictive IP protection might be as bad as not having it at all.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> If you’re ignoring copyright and IP rights while catching up? That’s just freeloading, you need someone to pay for all the research/innovation. This is not true. Everyone, everywhere, who created any thing ever, built it on the backs of [millennia of] previous creators. History teaches us that innovation flows in the absence of restrictions - including rent-seeking. Conversely, modern history teaches us that IP gets in the way everywhere it can.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  Innovation and progress happened at a snail’s pace (by modern standards) before IP rights (at least rudimentary) became a thing. Not saying there was a causal relationship necessarily but if we look at some of the most important inventions like the steam engine it’s unlikely that it could have been invented and perfected at the time it was without patents. It’s rather [extremely] simple and obvious , generally R&D requires significant investment. If you can’t get any return on your investment, you won’t invest. Of course there needs to be a balance to minimize rent seeking beyond a certain point.
  - throwaway14356 2y ago
    From what I understand, it was possible to build fantastic steam engines only after the patents expired. Before everyone was sitting on pats of it unwilling to cooperate like stubborn children.
- jorvi 2y ago