There's multiple problems here. 1. The thing that needs to change is not culture, it's literally the supreme court that has to change because the change in the

There's multiple problems here. 1. The thing that needs to change is not culture, it's literally the supreme court that has to change because the change in the 70's as the court transitioned to judge rehnquist's ideas is what caused the current problem. Prior to that we had a robust antitrust department that was going way too hard (they were breaking up regional gas station chains, so instead of saying "just don't do that" we went the exact opposite end of the spectrum into very wrong territory and allowed massive multinational monopolies/oligopolies). 2. The productive race to the bottom is awesome but it also needs some changes to copyright/patents. Contrary to what Mr. Hotz thinks, they are not stupid, they are a good idea that has been utterly coopted and rebranded to maximize holder value (at the direct cost of total societal value). To fix it we need to change the law to require minimization of harm at a given increase in copyrightable/patentable output with wording directing the error to be on the side of less damage to non copyright/patent holders. Copyright is easier here than patents because copyright terms went full retard. We could cut them down to the patent term and I highly doubt we see more than negligible drop in creative output because most of the value is in those first 20 years for almost all creative works.