Exactly. Without IP, scientists and researchers could only make a living through government funding. And that means governments also fully control the research and development. A free market needs IP. It’s fundamental.
Because Amazon stole it, made a copy available for 1/10 the price.
The marketing power of Amazon is 10’s of thousands of times greater than the original author, so you probably never hear that the book you are interested in has an author that is different from the one Amazon puts on the cover, who is a pen name of their “AI author”.
Note: I think IP law is a bit shit really, but removing any protection from creative works is dangerous, and extremely short sighted. If you don’t want to reward the corporations, learn to pirate…piracy is far more ethical than calling for the removal of IP law.
Besides, most FOSS projects specify a license that forbids stealing the code and using it in ways to make profits while not contributing back or making the fork open themselves. These licenses protect the IP of the FOSS projects. There are countless lawsuits of FOSS projects against IP theft. Without IP, FOSS projects will have a hard time to justify their work.
Companies do hardly any real or worthwhile r&d, they do product design and marketing. Universities and public research institutes are the only place where any actual science is done.
Lets just delete the greedy!
This is not about being greedy. This is about incentives. IP enables billions of jobs.
There are only 3.5 billion jobs worldwide. A good amount of those work for the government, in the army, in the public sector, etc…
I’d be surprised if it manages to get above a billion to be honest. Remember that copyright is a fairly recent invention.
And makes research investment-worthy.
Exactly. Without IP, scientists and researchers could only make a living through government funding. And that means governments also fully control the research and development. A free market needs IP. It’s fundamental.
You’re making this argument via FOSS.
Acting like FOSS is representing all creative work is dishonest.
You think that model holds well with a guy who poured his life into a book only to see no money from it because “IP is bad.”
Why wouldn’t we buy his book? Is it bad?
Because Amazon stole it, made a copy available for 1/10 the price.
The marketing power of Amazon is 10’s of thousands of times greater than the original author, so you probably never hear that the book you are interested in has an author that is different from the one Amazon puts on the cover, who is a pen name of their “AI author”.
Note: I think IP law is a bit shit really, but removing any protection from creative works is dangerous, and extremely short sighted. If you don’t want to reward the corporations, learn to pirate…piracy is far more ethical than calling for the removal of IP law.
IP law definitely needs reform though
Amazon didn’t steal it. The author chose to sell it on the platform. The terms are very clear before engaging in the contract.
Also IP isn’t the problem here. IP doesn’t make Amazon act shitty. Amazon makes Amazon act shitty.
So? You can have both.
Besides, most FOSS projects specify a license that forbids stealing the code and using it in ways to make profits while not contributing back or making the fork open themselves. These licenses protect the IP of the FOSS projects. There are countless lawsuits of FOSS projects against IP theft. Without IP, FOSS projects will have a hard time to justify their work.
This is already the only way scientists make a living
Not true. You mean scientists employed by universities. I mean scientists working in R&D of companies.
Companies do hardly any real or worthwhile r&d, they do product design and marketing. Universities and public research institutes are the only place where any actual science is done.
Source?
Companies do a lot of research. Just look around what they produce. None of the product designs are public IP. They develop it internally.
You seem to have no idea how the world works. Stop dreaming your romantic wishes.
Exactly, a thin wrapper around results from public research, almost nothing novel or valuable
Right back at you