5 ms·

> 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

by 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
  Charles Dickens writes a book. Everyone copies and sells it without permission. Charles Dickens starves. Charles Dickens either becomes a factory worker or dies. No more Charles Dickens books.
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    People like Charles Dickens books. The first publisher to get a hold of one would have a massive advantage. Publisher pays Charles Dickens to only provide his newest work to them. Many publishers want this privilege, there is a bidding war. Publisher sells millions in the first week, eventually other publishers get in on the action but it takes time to typeset, print and ship the books. The book is the talk of the town, consumers want one now. Publishing house doesn't make outsized profits years after the authors death and instead has to compete on the quailty of its publishing in the free market. Rent seeker has to get a factory job or dies. The market is brimming with high quailty editions of each authors work available to everyone at a price point they can afford.
    - ywvcbk 2y ago
      > Publisher sells millions in the first week That’s not how it worked back in the 1800s, that’s not even how it works now. In any case Charles Dickens would have earned less than he did and a larger proportion of surplus would have went to printers and publishers. How is that in any way a positive thing? And of course without physical distribution your “business” model is even more absurd (being very absurd to begin with). I’m not sure if you are aware (presumably not) but that’s how publishing worked in the 1500s. Cervantes got a lump sum for the Don Quixote (and his other books) and he was never able to sustain himself by writing and a had to have a daytime job. His books were (relatively) extremely popular at the time and no publishers outside of Spain paid him anything. It seems rather absurd that even someone like him could never make a comfortable living by writing? > Rent seeker has to get a factory job or dies These bizarrely unhinged anti IP takes are truly something else.. I mean sure the “fair” duration of copyright is up for discussion, author’s life + 70 years is probably excessive.
      - 2y ago

by ywvcbk 2y ago

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
Charles Dickens writes a book. Everyone copies and sells it without permission. Charles Dickens starves. Charles Dickens either becomes a factory worker or dies. No more Charles Dickens books.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  People like Charles Dickens books. The first publisher to get a hold of one would have a massive advantage. Publisher pays Charles Dickens to only provide his newest work to them. Many publishers want this privilege, there is a bidding war. Publisher sells millions in the first week, eventually other publishers get in on the action but it takes time to typeset, print and ship the books. The book is the talk of the town, consumers want one now. Publishing house doesn't make outsized profits years after the authors death and instead has to compete on the quailty of its publishing in the free market. Rent seeker has to get a factory job or dies. The market is brimming with high quailty editions of each authors work available to everyone at a price point they can afford.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    > Publisher sells millions in the first week That’s not how it worked back in the 1800s, that’s not even how it works now. In any case Charles Dickens would have earned less than he did and a larger proportion of surplus would have went to printers and publishers. How is that in any way a positive thing? And of course without physical distribution your “business” model is even more absurd (being very absurd to begin with). I’m not sure if you are aware (presumably not) but that’s how publishing worked in the 1500s. Cervantes got a lump sum for the Don Quixote (and his other books) and he was never able to sustain himself by writing and a had to have a daytime job. His books were (relatively) extremely popular at the time and no publishers outside of Spain paid him anything. It seems rather absurd that even someone like him could never make a comfortable living by writing? > Rent seeker has to get a factory job or dies These bizarrely unhinged anti IP takes are truly something else.. I mean sure the “fair” duration of copyright is up for discussion, author’s life + 70 years is probably excessive.
    - 2y ago