If creative output has a value, then people should be free to exchange their creations for anything they like. To create restrictions that prevent people from writing a book then making an arrangement with a publisher, is just to prevent people from actually being able to do anything with their creations.
Under the current law: NO!
That is just a dream from the people that are pro-IP -- they know, that is a dream, but they want you to dream it.
If you are working for a company and have an idea, the company gets the patent and you get (if you are lucky) a fixed amount (~$500 is a typical amount in my country) and the patent belongs to the company -- you don't even have the right to use the stuff for yourself.
IP means, in its conclusion, that the creators are disowned and the "owners" own your ideas. You created it, you are busted!
I guess, you are.
When you still find an employer, that makes a contract like that, call yourself lucky. In my country, it is a law -- and you can't cancel out laws in my country in contracts.
Not everybody is so lucky, that he has enough money or finds fitting freelancer work.
Ask the music people. They (oftentimes) can't sell their music without having contracts with big companies -- and they have to sell out all their rights.
But it seems that you just view the world from your standpoint -- fading out any negatives -- and everybody that has different experiences as you do, is just stupid or "obtuse" in your view. With such an attitude on your side, a discussion makes little to no sense.
How is that that "fundamentally wrong"?? It's just a natural extension of giving exclusivity to the creator of the work. Are you saying it's "fundamentally wrong" to, say, commission a creative work from an artist for your exclusive use, the way it was done for thousands of years?!? Treating creative works as a kind-of property, greatly simplifies things.
>and de-valuates any creative work.
HOW?!?! How is _paying_ for a creative work, devaluing it? I'm sure there are multitudes of examples when the artist was screwed out of profiting from their work, then again there are multitudes of examples when artists greatly profited from their work (Hey there, George Lucas).
>The most of the value goes not to the performers of the art (eg music) but to the distributors.
Sometimes that's true, and sometimes that isn't true. But even in the former case, there are good reasons why that may happen. Furthermore, it's not like this is limited to music or creative works. A condo developer may sell a piece of (physical) property, for moderate profit, to a savvy real estate agent who then flips it for twice the amount. Did the developer get screwed? Maybe, maybe not. That's just the way things are.
No it is not. There can be ideas and "copyright" without having IP. But IP does also mean that the "property" can be owned by people that did not create it. This notion is fundamentally wrong and de-valuates any creative work. In patents you can already see it (most inventors are getting just a little fixed money -- the most of the value goes to the companies) -- but also in copyrighted work. The most of the value goes not to the performers of the art (eg music) but to the distributors.