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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why does that level of effort entitle someone to a "comfortable living"? That's on the order of a few words a day.

Shakespeare wrote 39 plays and 154 sonnets. He didn't need a day job beacuse he wrote full time. He didn't enjoy copyright protection and was fine.

Because people enjoyed his books and were willing to pay for them? (But all the profits when to the printers in Belgium etc)

> That's on the order of a few words a day.

That irrelevant. It’s about the value/utility you provide and not the amount of labor.

Also you(or me) really have no clue how many words he wrote per day even if that were relevant. Maybe he wrote a dozen drafts for each book which he discarded, how would that change anything?

I mean… if you wrote down 500 words per day would you believe that you deserve to be paid more for that than Cervantes for e.g. 0.01 of his words?

> Shakespeare

Ran a theater (together with his partners) i.e. he was both the writer and the publisher.

His final theater troupe was sponsored directly by the King (previous one by the Lord Chamberlain) and had a royal patent and operated in a heavily regulated market. So surely not a very good example?

Or is patronage and a system heavily regulated by the government preferable to legal copyright? Because that the only realistic alternative besides having no content.

> entitle

What entitles you to the content of your bank account or retirement savings? Maybe even your house? What kind of a question was that even? (I don’t really get it)

People paid for something that took forever to materialize but were somehow excited to be part of the process.

Innovation right there!