If they worked as advertised I think that would be so.
I don't. They bog creativity down with the need to ask every possible
source for permission and possibly pay that source off or just get
told "no" far more than they promote it.
Copyright and patent look attractive to the first generation that
implement it, because they get all the claimed benefits and none of
the costs. The next generation has to pay the first generation for the
privilege of building on their work, and charge double what they did
to do better than break even. The third generation has to pay both
preceding ones and charge quadruple ...
Read your history: see how badly Charles Dickens got burnt in America.
He did?
When he was writing America didn't have any copyright laws while the
rest of the civilized world did. He got ripped off left, right and
center in America and never saw a penny from all the books sold there.
Did he actually lose money -- have expenses related to American
editions of his books without being able to pay those expenses from
sales of American editions of his books? Or did he just not actually
make money from the Americas, without any going down the drain there
either?
You're right there. I'd like to see copyright and patents owned by the
creators, made non-transferable and terminating with the creator's
death. I think that would best reflect their original intent.
I'd like to see them gone. Failing that, compulsory licensing at a non-
ludicrous fee, with a person who has paid the royalty once having
lifetime rights to as many personal copies as he pleases and to do
whatever he pleases with these copies inside closed doors, and the
person who wants to distribute copies having a not-too-big fee per
copy to pay and not being allowed to be told simply "no". And a no-
fault clause, where if something is unattributed you may use it until
and unless someone with a credible copyright claim complains, and only
become liable for infringement if you continue to do so afterward.
Then there's no liability risk associated with trying to use or copy
orphan works and the like.
But I'd really like to see them plain gone. I don't think they are or
ever were necessary, and I don't think their continued existence will
ever be allowed to benefit anybody much save the already super-rich,
aside from the odd random handout to "prove" the system "works". They
infringe on peoples' property rights in their physical possessions and
enforcement attempts naturally attempt to invade peoples' privacy and
further infringe on their property rights. Their very existence seems
to create a slippery slope with a tendency for lawmakers, lobbyists,
and corporations to enter into a cycle of ratcheting the laws ever
worse over time, which alone is a strong indication of bad law. And
the costs they try to make easier to pay are coming down. Development
costs these days, given maximum efficiency:
Bulky physical inventions: still fairly high, but dropping with
automation, prototyping tools, ever-better computers and CAD software,
etc.; and you can typically make fair margins on physical items
without having a monopoly anyway.
Pharmaceuticals: clinical trials are the big cost center here. Should
probably be taxpayer-funded as part of health and public safety
spending.
Other biotech/bio research: patent licensing is the big cost center!
Drop patent law and the development costs here largely disappear.
(In both of the latter two there's also lab equipment, but you can buy
that just once and then develop multiple drugs or other things using
the same equipment each time.)
Software: coding and testing. With open source the burden can easily
be spread among the core developers, power users, and hobbyists,
reducing the cost to the core developers.
Computer chips: AMD and Intel competing did a lot to usher in faster,
cheaper, better systems for consumers in the past decade or so, versus
when Intel had an effective monopoly on the x86-compatible CPU. I
don't see any benefit to patents here.
Movies: A live-action special-effects film with production values
comparable to Star Wars Ep III can now be produced for about the cost
of an ordinary new car if you know how. Obviously Lucas didn't, or
simply had money to burn, I'm guessing the latter.
TV: see above.
Books: Book authors are notorious for graphorrhea; you could charge
them for the privilege and still they'd write. Day jobs can finance
book-writing, especially since book-writing actually proceeds better
when done part-time than when done full-time as back-burnering it for
a few hours can get you out of blocks and bring insights.
Anything I missed there?
