Just like it makes sense for the US to enact and attempt to enforce restrictive IP laws on a global scale.
Make no mistake once China ascends they will enforce their will on the world just like the US has done and it will be ugly.
Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to due process. Say hello to coercive IP law. Say hello to unimaginably restrictive DRM and surveillance.
Is there a similar situation in China? My sense was that the culture was much less restrictive -- all is fair, it's not worth the time and money to sue someone else into oblivion.
China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has, even taking into account the latter's short and young history. The last time was in 1912, and very plausibly arguably 1949 too. (The Nationalists were pretty bad, objectively speaking.)
"the complexity of the Chinese political situation" = "China has overthrown harsh rulers many more times than the US has" is itself a simplification.
So is this video, it's also a simplification, but more importantly, it's one of several lines in the sand: China aside, I don't want that where I live. Period. Western companies have already started to censor themselves to not offend China, and this must stop.
Of course what I said is an oversimplification. It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions, and your own oversimplifications. The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly, and this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there. Perhaps something is missing from your own US-centric legalist analysis?
> It's meant to directly make you question your deep underlying assumptions
"Deep underlying" being code for being made up by you on the spot?
> The government has a lot of power on paper both now and historically. Yet despite this, rebellions have still occurred regularly
The last time 1949? So, not since modern, industrialized totalitarianism took hold. That's like talking about cancer by describing the life of a person before contracting cancer.
> this core central power did not historically cause China to go and colonise other countries committing atrocities there
They already are causing Western media to censor themselves even on sites blocked in China. Mercedes Benz apologized three times for even quoting the Dalai Lama, just an inspirational quote. For me, that's three times too many. And just like I'm not over the Iraq war being a war of aggression, I will not forget or forgive this, either. You do you.
> your own US-centric legalist analysis?
Again you assumptions about my assumptions. If anything, being German, my "analysis" (of which you quote nothing, don't engage with at all) is Nazi-based.
This isn't on the same scale as "enforce their will on the world", and nowhere near US-levels of "enforce their will". (Not justifying this sort of action however.)
My point is you and the earlier poster are happy to extrapolate small events into big ones in a way that doesn't match the historical record. The officials of the Chinese government are not stupid and can't go too far from public opinion, which is generally more principled that you (and other US-centric "analysers") give them credit for, being too focused on the laws and ignoring many "facts on the ground". (Not implying rule-of-law is a bad thing.)
> being German,
Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark. There are differences and also similarities.
Mercedes Benz apologized profusely. If the CCP will have their way, their murders will never have happened. The same is not true for the US, not even remotely. If that was the case, Noam Chomsky and others would have been murdered in the 70s or something. But here he is, one of the most prolific intellectuals. He gets smeared a lot, but there is still a giant difference.
That vimeo video you don't seem to be able to comment on directly is evidence of a very principled public opinion indeed, principled by fear, as a result of torture and murder.
> Germany has been under US influence since 1945, so my saying your analysis is US-centric is not too far off the mark.
More importantly, "saying your analysis is US-centric" means nothing. It's not a concrete criticism of anything I said. Your whole argument seems to be the US is worse, so how am I the US-centric one? All I'm hearing is, you're using one set of tyrants and murderers, US aggression and world influence, to justify another sets of tyrants and murderers, while saying "not justifying it however".
Until it becomes unprofitable to invest in innovation
https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo (Secret History of Silicon Valley - Computer History Museum, Mountain View)
In reality capitalism only took over after massive (debt based!) spending by (US) government during WWII. The risky stuff doesn't happen in companies. Even things like e-cars and rockets, see Elon Musk and his companies as the most prominent examples, didn't invent any of the basics. They just take well-established concepts.
It's not either or, it's specialization: The low-probability-of-success stuff for larger society (government mostly, at this point), and when there is something to build on the more focused business people and entrepreneurs who want to see an ROI are better at executing from there on.
But, back to the comment you replied to, basic research, the risky stuff, is better off being open and available.
If so, do you think that the world will do just fine if we removed large financial rewards for "shallow innovation" like the smartphone, new drugs, medical devices, software, etc?
everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
This is such a sweeping statement it's just false
> everyone building out a new technology borrowed ideas freely without compensating the real innovators (of course, implementation can be the more difficult piece)
Implementation is innovation too
> As long as governments subsidize public universities and research departments, there will exist a font of innovation
We need both
The world might be a better place if everyone stole and remixed IP