NationStates Jolt Archive

Good since you are unable or unwilling to find the proof I can only assume it doesn't exist.
And I'll take the fact that you don't already know it as proof that you have not read this thread and therefore everything you say about the arguments in it is bogus.

You do not seem to realize that this thread is not so about how IP currently operates so much as how it shouldoperate. <snip a point I have already dismissed and have not been engaging in and do not intend to engage in because to my mind there is nothing in it to talk about>
And you seem to be unaware that a sub-topic arose during the course of the conversation, so that one part of the discussion is about theories about how IP laws could be reformed and another part of the discussion is about actual IP laws that currently exist.

Ah, but of course you don't know that, since you have obviously not read the thread. So, this would be one of those arguments about what is in the thread that can be dismissed because you know nothing about it.

This is a bit true. Sometimes she makes me look diplomatic and charming! :p

Well, let's not take it too far... Maybe she's over around Hannity on the rude scale and you're just hanging out around PETA...

I need to draw this scale. I'll be back in a little while with it!

I think the point, Muravyets, is that your manner can be very abrasive. People are going to respond in kind.

Its all well and good if you don't care, but you've indicated in the past that you are baffled by this behavior.
I will clarify: I am not baffled and not bothered by abrasive responses to my abrasiveness. What bothers me is when bitching at me becomes the main activity instead of arguing the topic, and what baffles me is when certain people just seem to take it into their heads to wrangle with me more at some times than at others.

But this is all beside the topic, and it is about me, so I am going to put a stop to it now by not responding to any more comments about it.

I will clarify: I am not baffled and not bothered by abrasive responses to my abrasiveness. What bothers me is when bitching at me becomes the main activity instead of arguing the topic, and what baffles me is when certain people just seem to take it into their heads to wrangle with me more at some times than at others.

But this is all beside the topic, and it is about me, so I am going to put a stop to it now by not responding to any more comments about it.

A noble effort, but somehow I doubt it will work. :tongue:

What the... what? How was I even implying that it would interfere with that ability? I was saying I didn't like how it seemed like the people defending copyright were motivated by having a career that relied on it... but come to think of it, that should if anything be relieving, if only because it explains it.
Oh, I see. I thought you meant that you like the idea of art being a hobby and disliked the idea of career artists defending IP laws. Because, you know, that was what you said.

And I couldn't understand why those two concepts -- hobby artists who don't necessarily invoke copyright for their works and career artists who do -- would even overlap, since one does not interfere with the other in any way.

In case you hadn't noticed, I had already expressed other reasons in this thread for not liking copyright, such as that someone just so happening to be the first to be able to claim an idea as property is a matter of circumstance, etc... care for me to link specifically to those posts for you?
No, that's okay. Unlike some other people, I do read the thread. I have seen your arguments, but I reject them as indicative of someone who does not know how copyright works.

For instance, I have stated several times in this thread that an IDEA cannot be copyrighted. Only the specific unique work that an artist produces based on the idea. So the idea "two guys waiting for another guy" is not copyrighted, but the play "Waiting For Godot", about two guys waiting for another guy, is.*

So when did someone first come up with an idea? Who cares? It doesn't matter.

But when did Beckett write "Waiting For Godot"? That does matter, if someone else is going to try to claim that his play "Waiting For Bogot", which is identical to "Godot" word for word, came first and Beckett plagiarized him.

(*By the way, this is the third, possibly fourth time I have stated this point in this thread. I will not do it again.)

:rolleyes:

The point was not about the rudeness in and of itself. The point was about inconsistency. I believe in being insulting towards insulting people. You were insulting towards Free Soviets, so I was insulting towards you.
Please see my immediately previous post to VirginiaCooper. I am not the topic of this thread.

A noble effort, but somehow I doubt it will work. :tongue:
I do not believe it is okay to make a whole topic out of how much some people personally dislike a particular poster.

I do not believe it is okay to make a whole topic out of how much some people personally dislike a particular poster.

Yeah, but people who disagree are quite likely to carry on without you, I think.

Yeah, but people who disagree are quite likely to carry on without you, I think.
What I said stands. I mean "okay" with the forum rules. Fine if a little scuffle and bitch-whine happens every so often, but if a few people decide to make a whole ongoing conversation all about another person and how much they don't like them, I believe such discussions usually get locked.

For myself, I'm just going to keep stating that I am not the topic of this thread.

There are many issues with debating online that would not occur in real life, half of threads devolve into debates over what was meant when and by whom and often debates are at two ends of the spectrum, such as:

I demand the right to use any material whatsover as I please
You are a complete criminal, I will spank you

Neither side is really saying this, but the other sometimes assumes that position on behalf of the other.

At some point, if you can't get your point across, either because one is not clear enough or because the other is just not seeing it, one does have the option of giving up.

I will clarify: I am not baffled and not bothered by abrasive responses to my abrasiveness. What bothers me is when bitching at me becomes the main activity instead of arguing the topic, and what baffles me is when certain people just seem to take it into their heads to wrangle with me more at some times than at others.

But this is all beside the topic, and it is about me, so I am going to put a stop to it now by not responding to any more comments about it.

I am going to challenge you to not say anything rude or personal in any of your posts for a day. I think you'll find the topic stays on track quite a bit more. That people respond to your manner unfavorably shouldn't surprise.

http://api.photoshop.com/home_9ff4c25ff2df489bac093b0ce00afd36/adobe-px-assets/48384c20070a41db87e80923f678af9d

I demand to be taken seriously!

I am going to challenge you to not say anything bitchy in any of your posts for a day. I think you'll find the topic stays on track quite a bit more. That people respond to your manner unfavorably shouldn't surprise.

http://api.photoshop.com/home_9ff4c25ff2df489bac093b0ce00afd36/adobe-px-assets/48384c20070a41db87e80923f678af9d
I am not the topic of this thread.

I am going to challenge you to not say anything rude or personal in any of your posts for a day. I think you'll find the topic stays on track quite a bit more. That people respond to your manner unfavorably shouldn't surprise.

http://api.photoshop.com/home_9ff4c25ff2df489bac093b0ce00afd36/adobe-px-assets/48384c20070a41db87e80923f678af9d

I demand to be taken seriously!Do you have a comedy version of that? Because LG should be on both ends, just for the hell of it.

I am not the topic of this thread.

Fine. Don't complain about people derailing the thread when you can do something to change it and won't.

http://api.photoshop.com/home_9ff4c25ff2df489bac093b0ce00afd36/adobe-px-assets/c11c192a375b49548df6fa8850a88337

Oh, I see. I thought you meant that you like the idea of art being a hobby and disliked the idea of career artists defending IP laws. Because, you know, that was what you said.
No, I was saying that I liked the idea of art being a hobby and disliked that people being career artists was their motive for defending IP laws in the first place.

And I couldn't understand why those two concepts -- hobby artists who don't necessarily invoke copyright for their works and career artists who do -- would even overlap, since one does not interfere with the other in any way.
I wasn't even suggesting they even overlapped. Perhaps I misworded the comment, but I was just saying what I found appealing and unappealing, and perhaps I unintentionally made it sound like I was comparing apples and oranges.

No, that's okay. Unlike some other people, I do read the thread. I have seen your arguments, but I reject them as indicative of someone who does not know how copyright works.

For instance, I have stated several times in this thread that an IDEA cannot be copyrighted. Only the specific unique work that an artist produces based on the idea. So the idea "two guys waiting for another guy" is not copyrighted, but the play "Waiting For Godot", about two guys waiting for another guy, is.*
So you read the thread, huh? Did you notice how I pointed out that rampant piracy is wrong, if only for the effort required to implement those ideas?

Forgive me, but I am pointedly NOT READING this whole thread for fear of an aneurysm. Having glanced at portions of it, I am asking for anyone to point out to me where, if at all, (1) any poster has suggested an actual knowledge-based critique of intellectual property law, (2) any poster has discussed patents or trademark law with any detail, and (3) any poster has suggested a workable, logical alternative to existing intellectual property laws. I ask this out of laziness and a desire to know if any cream has risen to the top of the discussion.

I am aware that Free Soviets has sugggested something along the lines of logic that would do away with or restrict not just intellectual property, but the idea of property rights altogether.

No, I was saying that I liked the idea of art being a hobby and disliked that people being career artists was their motive for defending IP laws in the first place.
But why? Why should career artists not defend IP laws? I mean, why do you not like that?

I wasn't even suggesting they even overlapped. Perhaps I misworded the comment, but I was just saying what I found appealing and unappealing, and perhaps I unintentionally made it sound like I was comparing apples and oranges.
Okay, I see.

So you read the thread, huh? Did you notice how I pointed out that rampant piracy is wrong, if only for the effort required to implement those ideas?
Yep. Did I accuse you of being a violator of copyright or a thief?

Forgive me, but I am pointedly NOT READING this whole thread for fear of an aneurysm. Having glanced at portions of it, I am asking for anyone to point out to me where, if at all, (1) any poster has suggested an actual knowledge-based critique of intellectual property law,
Aside from you posting links to the government sources, I have tried to explain my understanding of copyright based on the research I have done on it as an artist who (a) depends on copyright and (b) works with appropriated images. SaintB, CToaN, and a couple others (my apologies to them) who work in the arts have done their best to explain the process as well.

(2) any poster has discussed patents or trademark law with any detail,
No. As far as I recall, no one who works with trademarks or patents has participated in the thread. I only know about copyright and have only discussed that, except that I have a couple of times pointed out that copyright, trademarks and patents are three entirely separate things.

It has been to little avail, as a few posters have persisted in conflating them.

and (3) any poster has suggested a workable, logical alternative to existing intellectual property laws. I ask this out of laziness and a desire to know if any cream has risen to the top of the discussion.
Not yet. I have mentioned briefly, in passing and without going into any detail a few ways in which I think copyright could be adjusted. A few other posters (again apologies for not recalling which ones off the top of my head) have made similar passing comments.

I am aware that Free Soviets has sugggested something along the lines of logic that would do away with or restrict not just intellectual property, but the idea of property rights altogether.
I believe I have already said enough about his suggestion.

But why? Why should career artists not defend IP laws? I mean, why do you not like that?
Again, as I said, my problem at first wasn't so much with how they were defending IP laws so much as that them being career artists was their motive for that. Note that since then I've mentioned that I've changed my mind on even that.

Did I accuse you of being a violator of copyright or a thief?
Did I ever suggest that you did? o.o

EDIT: My point was that my initial argument was about the idea of copyrighting IDEAS as opposed to being about the idea of copyrighting the products of the ideas and their implementation.

Again, as I said, my problem at first wasn't so much with how they were defending IP laws so much as that them being career artists was their motive for that. Note that since then I've mentioned that I've changed my mind on even that.
Okay. I'm glad you changed your mind, but I'm still confused and therefore curious -- what was it about them being career artists that made you not like the idea of them defending IP laws on the basis of their careers?

Also, what is your current stance? I'm sorry to keep asking you this, but I just want to make sure I'm on the same page with you.

EDIT: I just saw your edit. Do you mean that, now that you see that copyright does not restrict IDEAS, it doesn't bother you so much? :confused:

Did I ever suggest that you did? o.o
No. I just wanted to make sure you were not thinking that I meant to. I've been scolded by so many people for saying so many things I never said...

What kind of support system?

What kind of grants or institutional support? The military is a government institution. Welfare programs are a government institution. The NEA is a government institution.

What constitutes "some reliable income"? Benefits? What do you have to do to qualify for the benefits? A salary? What kind of employee would the artist be? Who would they work for? What would be the job title and responsibilities?

let a thousand flowers bloom, man.

i'm thinking a wide-ranging combination of things, with some people effectively employed full-time to work on creative output - perhaps also associated with teaching in some cases - as well as one-off funded projects. or even just people using some of their time while living on a guaranteed minimum income. that last would do wonders to free up wasted human potential, actually.

but my purpose isn't to come up with the specific implementation details. it is the idea and its justification that is important

In other words, you just made it up and in fact I said no such thing.

well, you would have, had your post actually been responsive to mine. either you intended it, or you didn't actually have a point with the comment in question. there are no other options.

I am aware that Free Soviets has sugggested something along the lines of logic that would do away with or restrict not just intellectual property, but the idea of property rights altogether.

of course, he always does that...

of course, he always does that...
Blumin' Red.

let a thousand flowers bloom, man.

i'm thinking a wide-ranging combination of things, with some people effectively employed full-time to work on creative output - perhaps also associated with teaching in some cases - as well as one-off funded projects. or even just people using some of their time while living on a guaranteed minimum income. that last would do wonders to free up wasted human potential, actually.

but my purpose isn't to come up with the specific implementation details. it is the idea and its justification that is important
Ah, so no actual plan to suggest then. Just like I said in my first criticism of you. So now we have confirmed that I was right in both my points of criticism.

Well, that was a fun little trip all around the barn to end up right back where we started, wasn't it? -_-

well, you would have, had your post actually been responsive to mine. either you intended it, or you didn't actually have a point with the comment in question. there are no other options.
In other words, you just made up things for me to have said while I wasn't talking to you. Well that just about sums up our NSG relationship pretty perfectly.

It really is just like dating that guy again. I think I'll complete the experience and break up with you again, just like I did him. You and Chumbly can sit around and talk about what a boring, pointless, illiterate, mouth-foaming bitch I am. 'Bye.

of course, he always does that...

:D

Did I misunderstand your suggestion?

I'm not saying that such an idea has no merit, but I doubt many of the "I want free media" groupies are willing to adopt such a solution to get there. :wink:

Okay. I'm glad you changed your mind, but I'm still confused and therefore curious -- what was it about them being career artists that made you not like the idea of them defending IP laws on the basis of their careers?
Well, it's not even so much that as how it seemed as though your very reason for defending these laws was their benefit to your career, instead of pursuing other careers. Come to think of it, that'd make me a hypocrite, seeing as how having type 1 diabetes is pretty much why I care as much about embryonic stem cell research as I do. It's human nature to act out of self-interest. It's just that seeing that in the context of your comments towards Free Soviets, etc... made me inclined to strike back with something that in hindsight was a bit over the top.

If anything, that being your motive should've been more of a reason to try to show more understanding as to where the people defending IP laws were coming from.

Also, what is your current stance? I'm sorry to keep asking you this, but I just want to make sure I'm on the same page with you.
I still believe that as overboard as rampant piracy is, the kind of excessive notion of property implied in regarding idea similarity as "plagiarism" just sounds arbitrary to me. I remember even unwillingly, unknowingly plagiarizing, such as with some story I wrote in elementary school where the villain was some caped vampire with a jack-o-lantern for a head, only realizing after I passed it in that I got that idea from a Billy the Cat episode where one of the characters had a cape and either a pumpkin or a jack-o-lantern for (or on) their head.

And ironically, this seems to flow right into my next point. I recall emailing the company behind the Billy the Cat cartoon asking if it was still on the air (wanted to see it again out of nostalgia) and they said it wasn't. And video clips from the show don't seem so abundant on youtube either. It's a bit ironic that the amount of piracy seems proportional to the popularity of the product being pirated.

No. I just wanted to make sure you were not thinking that I meant to. I've been scolded by so many people for saying so many things I never said...
Ah, fair enough. I think a lot more behaviour on the Internet can be attributed to misunderstandings than people realize...

Well, it's not even so much that as how it seemed as though your very reason for defending these laws was their benefit to your career, instead of pursuing other careers. Come to think of it, that'd make me a hypocrite, seeing as how having type 1 diabetes is pretty much why I care as much about embryonic stem cell research as I do. It's human nature to act out of self-interest. It's just that seeing that in the context of your comments towards Free Soviets, etc... made me inclined to strike back with something that in hindsight was a bit over the top.

If anything, that being your motive should've been more of a reason to try to show more understanding as to where the people defending IP laws were coming from.
Oh, okay. All's well that ends well, then.

I still believe that as overboard as rampant piracy is, the kind of excessive notion of property implied in regarding idea similarity as "plagiarism" just sounds arbitrary to me.
That's probably because the people who make the most noise against piracy are the big corporations who are the other half of the problem, not entirely innocent injured parties themselves. They dilute their legitimate complaints with stupid "we own the letter B!!!" bullshit is rather arbitrary. Or not really arbitrary, but unreasonable.

If one is able to download a work of art then the artist has already chosen to share their piece of work since according to those against IP they have no ownership rights to the information/ideas themselves.

No, no they have not. Just because something appears online or in public in no way entails that someone is allowed to take it and make copies of it. In fact a lot of portfolio websites created by graphic artists like myself have on them in pretty clear terms that its not allowed if they don't want people to make copies. The same on virtually any news site, and a lot of blogs.


According to those against IP rights one can't own ideas/information. Someone who tries to make a living a living using illegitimate property rights is a fool.

And anyone who thinks that is a fool or a hypocrite. My ideas belong to me; if they want to share their ideas its perfectly fine but I don't have to share all of mine.


Actually I believe in some sort of of IP rights. I was just pointing out that Anti-IPers aren't hypocrites. They don't think anybody for compensated for something they have right too. They also don't wish to force everything to be freely shared. Not one anti Iper I have seen demands that others share their own Harry Potter slash fic or nude pics. They just think that if a copy that slash or pics are given/sold to someone else who then puts that slash or pic on a file sharing site and then its downloaded thousands of times then the original creator should not expect compensation because the original creator has no ownership rights to the immaterial creation in the Anti IP paradigm.

Then I apologize for lumping you with them; but never has anyone proven to me that they in the anti IP crowd be anything other than fools and hypocrites.

Aside from you posting links to the government sources, I have tried to explain my understanding of copyright based on the research I have done on it as an artist who (a) depends on copyright and (b) works with appropriated images. SaintB, CToaN, and a couple others (my apologies to them) who work in the arts have done their best to explain the process as well.

Uhmm, what are you apologizing for here Murv?

And to make something clear, I am not just defending IP laws because they help me mae a living, i am defending them because I believe that people should earn compensation for what they do, no matter what they do, if that is how they choose to make a living.

And I'll take the fact that you don't already know it as proof that you have not read this thread and therefore everything you say about the arguments in it is bogus.

Horseshit. You made claims and can't back them up.


And you seem to be unaware that a sub-topic arose during the course of the conversation, so that one part of the discussion is about theories about how IP laws could be reformed and another part of the discussion is about actual IP laws that currently exist.

Ah, but of course you don't know that, since you have obviously not read the thread. So, this would be one of those arguments about what is in the thread that can be dismissed because you know nothing about it.

Please, the subtopic was arose to address the main topic. What should IP rights be. Whatare they currently. Given what they are how does that reflect on what they should be. Stop saying things are in the thread when they aren't.

No, no they have not. Just because something appears online or in public in no way entails that someone is allowed to take it and make copies of it. In fact a lot of portfolio websites created by graphic artists like myself have on them in pretty clear terms that its not allowed if they don't want people to make copies. The same on virtually any news site, and a lot of blogs.

If its in an explicit contract then I don't see most Anti-IPers have a problem with this. This is like the first sale doctrine. I buy a book and then can sell it or give it to anyone unless I signed a contract. If not then its would not be considered binding since to them ideas can not be owned.

And anyone who thinks that is a fool or a hypocrite. My ideas belong to me; if they want to share their ideas its perfectly fine but I don't have to share all of mine.

I don't see how they are hypocrites. They don't think ideas can be owns. Whether or not it makes them fools is debatable.

Then I apologize for lumping you with them; but never has anyone proven to me that they in the anti IP crowd be anything other than fools and hypocrites.

Its ok. It was an easy mistake to make.

I don't see how they are hypocrites. They don't think ideas can be owns. Whether or not it makes them fools is debatable.


Because just like everyone else, they live in a society in which people have to earn money to make a living. If the are making any kind of living they have no right to begrudge anyone that right, by stealing things from people whether they see it that way or not they are denying people the ability to make a living.

Because just like everyone else, they live in a society in which people have to earn money to make a living. If the are making any kind of living they have no right to begrudge anyone that right, by stealing things from people whether they see it that way or not they are denying people the ability to make a living.

People aren't entitled to a living. Trying to earn a living in a profession where one can't earn a living is not very prudent.

People aren't entitled to a living. Trying to earn a living in a profession where one can't earn a living is not very prudent.

Which just rolls right in on itself and goes back to my argument of "Why bother to do it then?" To me its not a valid answer; we need innovators, and we need those innovators to be protected by laws the same as anyone else is

Which just rolls right in on itself and goes back to my argument of "Why bother to do it then?" To me its not a valid answer; we need innovators, and we need those innovators to be protected by laws the same as anyone else is

Hate to break it to you, but we got through the first 10,000 years without patents. Imagine if one of the early humans had tried to patent the knife.

People aren't entitled to a living. Trying to earn a living in a profession where one can't earn a living is not very prudent.

Then what is the incentive to create? I've yet to see an answer to this.

Hate to break it to you, but we got through the first 10,000 years without patents. Imagine if one of the early humans had tried to patent the knife.

And how far did we get in 10,000 years? Thanks to IP laws we have learned, improved, and invented things that make life good at probably 100 times that rate, we did in 100 years what couldn't be achieved in 1,000 years if not for IP. As for the argument that I am sure you will throw out next about how IP stifles creativity; to the truly innovative all it does is tell them what people have already done.

I have read the entire thread, so I will not be jumping into the current debate.
Instead, I will just ask a question.

What would be the best/most effective way to stifle creativity, and how come?

I have read the entire thread, so I will not be jumping into the current debate.
Instead, I will just ask a question.

What would be the best/most effective way to stifle creativity, and how come?

Preventing the creators from benefiting from being creators. We'd loose a lot of progress in medicine, quality of life, and art in a hurry.

Preventing the creators from benefiting from being creators. We'd loose a lot of progress in medicine, quality of life, and art in a hurry.

And how would one best set out to prevent them from benefiting from others?

And how would one best set out to prevent them from benefiting from others?

By getting rid of the laws that protect them from someone stealing their ideas.

A lot of people are not thinking the whole IP thing through very well. Sure, the big guys support IP, but only because its already out there; you take away IP than the big guys will play ball the same way those fools and hypocrites that think they should be able to get free copies of whatever they want because someone else already payed for it. They will buy a single copy of what the little guy, the truest of all innovators, creates; and make a bagillion exact copies that they can distribute however they want, like by selling them for instance...

Uhmm, what are you apologizing for here Murv?

And to make something clear, I am not just defending IP laws because they help me mae a living, i am defending them because I believe that people should earn compensation for what they do, no matter what they do, if that is how they choose to make a living.
I was apologizing for not remembering everyone's names and being too lazy at that moment to go and look them up.

I was apologizing for not remembering everyone's names and being too lazy at that moment to go and look them up.

Oh! I should stop posting at 7 am huh?

What would be the best/most effective way to stifle creativity, and how come?

Flogging anyone who comes up with a new idea would work.

Shit, I just came up with that idea. *is flogged*

Hate to break it to you, but we got through the first 10,000 years without patents.

A sad little argument. Clearly our first 10,000 years were superior times with better government, more freedom, and greater rate of scientific progress. :rolleyes:

Imagine if one of the early humans had tried to patent the knife.

Written by someone that clearly doesn't understand patents. One of the points of a patent system is that it makes patented inventions public.

Horseshit. You made claims and can't back them up.

Please, the subtopic was arose to address the main topic. What should IP rights be. Whatare they currently. Given what they are how does that reflect on what they should be. Stop saying things are in the thread when they aren't.
You can get more and more snitty about this if you like, but the fact remains that what I said is in the thread is actually in the thread. You claiming that there is no evidence of my assertions is not dissimilar from me putting a piece of paper in front of you, you refusing to look at it and then accusing me of not showing you any evidence. I have been involved in the exchanges in which the opinions I said were expressed were expressed. I told you what those opinions were and named one of the posters who said them. If I was claiming some other party on some other website had said something, then yes, I should really go and find that link to prove it, but the proof is right in front of you here and now, and I am not going to pick through the past of this conversation and spam up the thread with copy/paste of old posts, just because you told me to. I don't jump through hoops for you.

Now, if you want to dismiss me as a crank because I don't run and fetch at your say-so, go right ahead. I have already dismissed your arguments on the grounds that they are circular, self-serving and ignorant (deliberately, I suspect) of the content of the conversation so far. I'm completely ready to stop talking to you altogether. I'm sure it would be a benefit to the thread if you would likewise decide that I'm not worth talking to and stop yelling at me over something I have told you several times I am not going to do.

And now, back to the topic:

People aren't entitled to a living. Trying to earn a living in a profession where one can't earn a living is not very prudent.
Actually, people ARE entitled to a living. They are not entitled to a guarantee that they will succeed in making a living in any given field, but we are ALL entitled to earn a living and to try in whatever field we like.

You don't get to decide that my field of work is not going to be profitable to me. And if you do decide to try, I am within my rights to try to stop you or get around you. And that's what copyright and patents are for. Welcome back to square one.

You keep saying that no one can make a living from creative work, but you have shown us no reason why that should be so, other than your desire to get creative product for free.

But if I'm not getting paid to do it, I won't do it. If enough creative people also don't do it for free -- meaning they don't do it at all -- what will you do when you run out of free stuff to download? Sit and listen to the same songs for the rest of your life? Or do you think you might someday want or need something enough to pay for it? Welcome back to square one again.

Then what is the incentive to create? I've yet to see an answer to this.
Well, clearly, Sdaeriji, the incentive for us is to serve them. To improve their lives with our inventions. To entertain their idle hours with our art, music, etc. And the pay off for us the warm glow of knowing how happy we've made them. *starry eyes* It's like a religious vocation, it really is. It is it's own reward.

I have read the entire thread, so I will not be jumping into the current debate.
Instead, I will just ask a question.

What would be the best/most effective way to stifle creativity, and how come?

And how would one best set out to prevent them from benefiting from others?
By going to extremes in either direction. By leaving artists with no protection for their work whatsoever, so that there is no way for them to use their work to earn a living, thus forcing them to work at other things to get food, shelter, clothing, etc., and thus have no time to create. If there is no marketplace for ideas then there will be no trade in ideas because there will be no ideas to trade. People will just not have the time to develop many ideas, nor will they have the time or the resources to develop what ideas they can realize in any way that will make them applicable to a wider audience than their own personal social circle. Those who think the internet will be a vast and endless ocean of creative thinking just do not understand what it takes to develop a creative idea -- whether it is artwork or an invention -- for mass consumption. If you really look at what is out there on the internet, you will see that most of it -- most of the "creative" stuff that random people put up for free -- is repetitive, redundant, shallow; dead-end ideas that have nowhere to go; all the same primitive initial concepts that will never be developed into anything. The internet is full of aborted intellectual fetuses. The real ideas that are growing out there, whether for pay or for free, are few and far between among the vast masses of drone and bore. It takes time and effort to develop an idea to be really new, really interesting, and/or really useful. If there is no way for a creative person to earn a living from creative work, then they just will not have the time to put in the effort.

On the flip side, you can stifle creativity -- especially in the sciences and technology -- by keeping creative work out of the public domain forever, as some of the corporations who buy the rights to the works of creative individuals would like to do. Those who argue that IP laws are invalid or that artists don't have a right to use their work for their own benefit are fools and hypocrites, but those who are so jealous of an idea's earning potential that they will never let anyone else get at it are also fools and hypocrites.

The proper approach is to maintain a balance.

I'll quote SaintB for truth, too:

By getting rid of the laws that protect them from someone stealing their ideas.

A lot of people are not thinking the whole IP thing through very well. Sure, the big guys support IP, but only because its already out there; you take away IP than the big guys will play ball the same way those fools and hypocrites that think they should be able to get free copies of whatever they want because someone else already payed for it. They will buy a single copy of what the little guy, the truest of all innovators, creates; and make a bagillion exact copies that they can distribute however they want, like by selling them for instance...
There are no pirates more brutal than the media and tech corporations. All this fight between the companies and the pirates -- it's really a war between two sets of pirates, fighting over the power to strip creative individuals of the benefit of their own work.

Then what is the incentive to create? I've yet to see an answer to this.

turns out that empirically, people just like doing creative work. and they'll work really really hard at it for pretty much just prestige, provided they make enough money to get by comfortably.

the better question is how we will deal with the fact that certain sorts of creative work ring up huge initial costs, but as soon as the first product of that creative work is produced the price of the second drops to almost nothing. the problem isn't one of incentive to create, but funding for initial research and/or development.

A sad little argument. Clearly our first 10,000 years were superior times with better government, more freedom, and greater rate of scientific progress. :rolleyes:



Written by someone that clearly doesn't understand patents. One of the points of a patent system is that it makes patented inventions public.
This is what amazes me the most about this whole "debate." Talk about "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" -- you actually posted the links to the rules and it seems not one of these people has bothered to look at them yet. They state factual error after factual error about the laws and rules. It is clear they have no understanding of what they are talking about. And even when the facts are handed to them, they will not educate themselves. This is a strong indicator that they have no interest in really understanding what they are talking about.

Let's not kid ourselves about what kind of argument we are really debating against here -- it is nothing but people who want to take anything they like for free whenever they feel like it from whatever source, crying because they are not allowed to. All their talk about property rights or the benefits of "the commons" or the profitability of the arts or the trade in ideas, etc, is just so much chin music in their attempts to get people to give them stuff for free.

Can IP laws be improved? Of course. They can and need to be improved to both provide greater protection to creative innovators and greater openess in the idea marketplace. But any serious discussion of that is lost in the juvenile noise of the crowd who just don't like being reminded that the world isn't actually theirs for the taking.

turns out that empirically, people just like doing creative work. and they'll work really really hard at it for pretty much just prestige, provided they make enough money to get by comfortably.

the better question is how we will deal with the fact that certain sorts of creative work ring up huge initial costs, but as soon as the first product of that creative work is produced the price of the second drops to almost nothing. the problem isn't one of incentive to create, but funding for initial research and/or development.
Wow, that's quite an impressive set of facts there. Where did you get them from?

I would really like to see the empirical data that shows that people just like doing creative work and will do it just for prestige and a modest income. I actually happen to agree that that is true, but I would really like to know how you know it empirically.

I would also be interested to know how you learned that the work of creative individuals loses value as the person keeps creating. Explain how if a person comes up with one idea that is profitable, their second idea will be worth next to nothing. Understanding that will certainly be vital to my career.

Because it would seem to me that, if what you say is true, then Picasso's second painting would have been worth nothing compared to his first painting, but in fact, that is not actually true.

Or, following your statement, if a guy invents, say, the paper clip, and is wildly successful with that idea, his next idea -- say, the steam iron -- is going to go nowhere. *thinks about history* Yeah, no, that doesn't seem to work either.

Or perhaps you mean that copies of a work are not worth as much as the original? Well, that is true for fine art, certainly. A print of a painting cannot be sold for as much as the original painting, but that hardly means the value drops to nothing. In fact, many artists make the bulk of their income from sales of lower-priced copies of original works. And of course there is no downward slide for progressive copies of an original. The price of a copy is the price of a copy. It does not vary. Also, I don't see how that affects any creative field other than fine art, which specializes in the production of one-off originals.

turns out that empirically, people just like doing creative work. and they'll work really really hard at it for pretty much just prestige, provided they make enough money to get by comfortably.

the better question is how we will deal with the fact that certain sorts of creative work ring up huge initial costs, but as soon as the first product of that creative work is produced the price of the second drops to almost nothing. the problem isn't one of incentive to create, but funding for initial research and/or development.

Empirically, huh? Well, I suppose you can guess what my next question is, if you're going to claim that empirically, people like doing creative work sheerly for the prestige.

Empirically, huh? Well, I suppose you can guess what my next question is, if you're going to claim that empirically, people like doing creative work sheerly for the prestige.
I work for fame and modest money. I would be very happy to earn maybe $40-$50K/year and have my work be popular and widely distributed. However, I have never been involved in a study about why creative people work, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone ever tried to measure or even observe the whyness of my actions or decisions.

Empirically, huh? Well, I suppose you can guess what my next question is, if you're going to claim that empirically, people like doing creative work sheerly for the prestige.

yeah, but it isn't sheerly for the prestige. it's mainly for the inherent satisfaction, which prestige can play a role in. anyways, it's actually kinda obvious. you think people start playing instruments or doing scientific research for the riches? i mean, maybe, though that makes them out to be rather stupider than we would otherwise claim. it's all about giving intrinsic motivation room to work.

see
Prabhu, V; Sutton, C; Sauser, W. "Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation". Creativity Research Journal, 20 (1): 53-66

and for a recent study of how creativity works in an applied setting, check out
Dewett, T. "Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment". R&D Management 37(3): 197-208

edit: ooh, google has got "creativity in context" up. worth taking a glance through to see some more of the research into and theory of creativity - it's cited in both of those papers, for example.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hioVn_nl_OsC

Or perhaps you mean that copies of a work are not worth as much as the original? Well, that is true for fine art, certainly. A print of a painting cannot be sold for as much as the original painting, but that hardly means the value drops to nothing. In fact, many artists make the bulk of their income from sales of lower-priced copies of original works. And of course there is no downward slide for progressive copies of an original. The price of a copy is the price of a copy. It does not vary. Also, I don't see how that affects any creative field other than fine art, which specializes in the production of one-off originals.

this, sort of. but the issue isn't progressively lowered prices or whatever. the issue is that the cost of making the first new pill to treat cancer is a bajillion dollars, but the second and all additional pills cost pennies. this is where patents get their intellectual force - without some time as a monopoly to recoup costs, it is difficult to see where private entities would front the bajillion to fund certain sorts of creative work.

fine art is one of the places where creative works don't run into this problem, since the original actually does have additional value. but nobody cares whether they get 'an original' vaccine - hell, they'd probably rather have the later copies.

Is IP law the real topic here? or is this an experiment to see how long the same few people can argue the same few points for before one side gets bored and goes away?

Is IP law the real topic here? or is this an experiment to see how long the same few people can argue the same few points for before one side gets bored and goes away?

Damn that's kinda a sane head there, for a newbie!:D

turns out that empirically, people just like doing creative work. and they'll work really really hard at it for pretty much just prestige, provided they make enough money to get by comfortably.


Let us assume for a moment this is true.

Do you think that such minimal compensation is fair ?

Let us assume for a moment this is true.

Do you think that such minimal compensation is fair ?

If it is true, then fairness does not even enter into it.

Let us assume for a moment this is true.

Do you think that such minimal compensation is fair ?

well, given that i want everybody to live comfortably and have as much chance as possible to engage in work they find rewarding, i'm gonna say yes.

One of the points of a patent system is that it makes patented inventions public.

yeah, patents beat trade secrets - employing tons of people in industrial espionage just seems wasteful.

well, given that i want everybody to live comfortably and have as much chance as possible to engage in work they find rewarding, i'm gonna say yes.

So... that failing greedy bankmanagers earn millions while people that selflessly and succesfully enrich and/or improve the lives of others get only minimum wage is fair ?

Well, ok. If they truly do not want to... I can somewhat agree with that.

So... that failing greedy bankmanagers earn millions while people that selflessly and succesfully enrich and/or improve the lives of others get only minimum wage is fair ?

perhaps i should have italicized 'everybody'

I want everybody to live comfortably and have as much chance as possible to engage in work they find rewarding

*goes of on a tangent*
I completely agree with this statement.

Hate to break it to you, but we got through the first 10,000 years without patents.

Under a dire, Malthusian epoch.

Is IP law the real topic here? or is this an experiment to see how long the same few people can argue the same few points for before one side gets bored and goes away?

Shhh. You'll expose the secret of NSG!!!!

perhaps i should have italicized 'everybody'

That statement can be interpreted in multiple ways. Are you advocating communism ;) ?

That statement can be interpreted in multiple ways. Are you advocating communism ;) ?

Free Soviets? Never!! :p

Under a dire, Malthusian epoch.

i suppose the question, then, is to what extent ip is responsible for sewers and the germ theory of disease

I think the point, Muravyets, is that your manner can be very abrasive. People are going to respond in kind.


You want to know a really easy way to not be talked to like an idiot?


Dont say things an idiot would say.

Do you think that such minimal compensation is fair ?
I don't know that it's unfair. I mean, should anyone posting a video of their own creation to youtube be inherently entitled to some financial gain as a result of doing so?

The thing about our existing system of trade, whether with or without intellectual property, is that making a living from creative endeavour isn't about "fair". It's about whether you can persuade people to support you, and that's more about good marketing technique than the inherent quality of the work you've done. (Obviously, a high quality product is easier to market than a bad one, but a good PR team with a bad product is often a better seller than a bad team with a good one; Hollywood and Popular Music being shining examples of that fact)

Someone mentioned earlier about the incentive to create in a system with no IP. The truth is, the incentive to create is relatively limited anyway. You're better off making one thing and learning how to sell it more effectively than improving it or making other things. True, establishing a brand may involve making a range of Good Things, but the ideal is making as little as possible with as much return as possible, and the Incentive is precisely to make the things you have made easier to sell.

If you want to better enfranchise people into engaging in creative endeavour, IP law isn't going to help you, and neither will removing it.

this, sort of. but the issue isn't progressively lowered prices or whatever. the issue is that the cost of making the first new pill to treat cancer is a bajillion dollars, but the second and all additional pills cost pennies. this is where patents get their intellectual force - without some time as a monopoly to recoup costs, it is difficult to see where private entities would front the bajillion to fund certain sorts of creative work.

fine art is one of the places where creative works don't run into this problem, since the original actually does have additional value. but nobody cares whether they get 'an original' vaccine - hell, they'd probably rather have the later copies.
Oh, you meant initial costs, not initial value. Well, okay, that makes sense, then, and is applicable to patents, not copyrightable material.

I wonder, what are the chances we -- the whole thread -- might quit combining/conflating the different parts of IP so we can keep track of what we're all talking about a little better?

Is IP law the real topic here? or is this an experiment to see how long the same few people can argue the same few points for before one side gets bored and goes away?
Um...what you describe is the underlying test subject of every NSG thread.

Let us assume for a moment this is true.

Do you think that such minimal compensation is fair ?
I think what's NOT fair is anyone other than the creative individuals deciding for said individuals what a fair compensation would be. Just like any other professional -- whether they produce stuff or services -- creative workers should be able to find/negotiate the best compensation they can manage and that the market will bear. I might be comfortable with a "lower-middle to middle class" income from my work. Someone else might want more. Why should my lower standard limit whatever they could possibly get by their own efforts?

I don't know that it's unfair. I mean, should anyone posting a video of their own creation to youtube be inherently entitled to some financial gain as a result of doing so?
People have the right to choose to either give their stuff away or sell it. Choosing to sell it does not guarantee that they will find a buyer, but if something is marked "for sale" and someone else just takes it without paying, that's called stealing. It wasn't theirs, so they did not have the right to take it just because they could.

The thing about our existing system of trade, whether with or without intellectual property, is that making a living from creative endeavour isn't about "fair". It's about whether you can persuade people to support you, and that's more about good marketing technique than the inherent quality of the work you've done. (Obviously, a high quality product is easier to market than a bad one, but a good PR team with a bad product is often a better seller than a bad team with a good one; Hollywood and Popular Music being shining examples of that fact)
I'm sorry, but...what?

Okay, I'm an artist. I make stuff. That stuff is called artworks. I sell that stuff. Let me explain the process: (1) I make the stuff. (2) I put the stuff up for sale. (3) Someone buys the stuff. (4) I put the money in my bank account.

How the fuck is that me trying to persuade someone to support me?

How is that any different from the process of a shoe maker or an auto manufacturer selling the stuff they make?

And how is it not fair? I have stuff to sell. If someone wants it, they buy it. If they don't, they don't. Where's the unfairness?

And what's unfair about marketing? Is it more unfair if a creative designer or artist or performer or inventor markets their stuff than if a car maker does it?

Oh, you meant initial costs, not initial value.

which sorta explains why it is also what i said. this new learning is astounding!

Well, okay, that makes sense, then, and is applicable to patents, not copyrightable material.

read any novels recently?

which sorta explains why it is also what i said. this new learning is astounding!



read any novels recently?
Ever try writing something yourself? Writers have very low production costs to make their original works. The production costs of the copies is actually higher. Also, the value of an original manuscript is nearly zero unless the writer is already enough of a literary legend to be collectible.

So that is one of the areas of creative work in which your "the value (by which you meant cost) of later creations (by which you meant copies or later versions/editions of a creation) plummets to near zero compared to the value (read: cost) of the original" argument does not apply.

Did you read your own post, by the way? You yourself acknowledged that your model does not apply to some areas of creative work. Writing is one of them. Just like fine art is one of them.

I'm sorry, but...what?

Okay, I'm an artist. I make stuff. That stuff is called artworks. I sell that stuff. Let me explain the process: (1) I make the stuff. (2) I put the stuff up for sale. (3) Someone buys the stuff. (4) I put the money in my bank account.

How the fuck is that me trying to persuade someone to support me?
You missed out the step between (2) and (3); namely, notifying people of your sale and explaining to them why it's worth buying. That's the persuasion.

And how is it not fair? I have stuff to sell. If someone wants it, they buy it. If they don't, they don't. Where's the unfairness?
I didn't say it's Not Fair; what I said was It's Not About Fairness. You might spend a lot of time and effort making something, and the thing you make might be of fantastic quality, but the financial pay-off you get at the end of it might not be a fair reflection of the work that went into it, because the object's value isn't necessarily a linear function of the effort that went into it.

You missed out the step between (2) and (3); namely, notifying people of your sale and explaining to them why it's worth buying. That's the persuasion.
And you evidently missed the whole paragraph I devoted to asking you what's so unfair about marketing.

I didn't say it's Not Fair; what I said was It's Not About Fairness. You might spend a lot of time and effort making something, and the thing you make might be of fantastic quality, but the financial pay-off you get at the end of it might not be a fair reflection of the work that went into it.
I'm sorry, but that just seems like nonsense. Fairness when it comes to business is the result of one thing that is not necessarily controllable, and one that is highly subjective.

The uncontrollable factor is the vagaries of the market and whether the artist is going to succeed in finding buyers. This is absolutely the same for every businessperson in every kind of business, so attaching this point to creative work in particular seems silly.

The subjective factor is whether the seller feels satisfied with the price they get. If I price my work a certain way, and it sells for that, then I will consider that fair, even if someone else thinks I underpriced myself.

EDIT: I would refer you back to my earlier post in which I said that I think the only question of "fairness" in regards to compensation for creative workers is when other people try to determine for us what we should be making. Let the combination of our own efforts plus the luck of the marketplace determine that, just like it does for everyone else.

Ever try writing something yourself? Writers have very low production costs to make their original works. The production costs of the copies is actually higher. Also, the value of an original manuscript is nearly zero unless the writer is already enough of a literary legend to be collectible.

costs, not value. and you aren't accounting for time invested.

the value (by which you meant cost)

dude. i said cost. you said value.

Did you read your own post, by the way? You yourself acknowledged that your model does not apply to some areas of creative work.

you mean like when i said
the better question is how we will deal with the fact that certain sorts of creative work ring up huge initial costs, but as soon as the first product of that creative work is produced the price of the second drops to almost nothing. the problem isn't one of incentive to create, but funding for initial research and/or development.
?

what, exactly, do you believe i am doing, such that your discovery of the things i said counts as arguments against those very statements themselves?

costs, not value. and you aren't accounting for time invested.

<snip all the parts that are just baiting and sniping at me instead of talking about the topic>
Take my hand and follow as I baby-step you through it:

1) The PRODUCTION COSTS of producing an original manuscript are actually lower than the production costs of producing copies (the books).

2) IN ADDITION TO AND ASIDE FROM THAT, the SALE VALUE of an original manuscript is near zero.

Apparently, in addition to not knowing how arts grants work nor how art gets made and sold, you also don't know how writers work. Writers do not factor their time spent actually writing into costs of production because that time varies so wildly from project to project and is so difficult (if not impossible) to document that it cannot be factored into the per unit pricing of each book for which they will receive a royalty upon sale. This is why royalties are a flat rate regardless of how much time the writer put into creating the novel. Because of the amorphousness of the writing process, an original MS has no inherent value beyond the cost of the paper and ink it is made of.

EDIT: Since all of a writer's income will be from the sale of copies of the original (or, more accurately, from sales of multiple originals), any given MS will have a COST of $0.00 (or perhaps as much as $20 in paper and ink) and a potential VALUE of anything from $0.00 to millions of dollars.

You know, your condescension would seem less ridiculous if you could manage to keep the actual points straight and demonstrate some knowledge of your subject as you rush to belittle me.

And you evidently missed the whole paragraph I devoted to asking you what's so unfair about marketing.
Having edited your post to reflect precisely my response to this point, why did you leave this in here?

I'm sorry, but that just seems like nonsense. Fairness when it comes to business is the result of one thing that is not necessarily controllable, and one that is highly subjective.

The uncontrollable factor is the vagaries of the market and whether the artist is going to succeed in finding buyers. This is absolutely the same for every businessperson in every kind of business, so attaching this point to creative work in particular seems silly.

The subjective factor is whether the seller feels satisfied with the price they get. If I price my work a certain way, and it sells for that, then I will consider that fair, even if someone else thinks I underpriced myself.
How can it seem like nonsense when you're saying what I said? Yes, of course the uncontrollable factor means that you're not guaranteed to find a buyer, and of course your understanding of a fair price depends on whether you get what you priced your work for. My point was that this inherent uncontrollability means that the fair price for your work is not a primary deciding factor in your success in selling anything. In fact, it is only when other people see your work as worth buying that it sells, whether that requires a fair price or otherwise. That is, your success or failure as an artist trying to make a living is Not About Fairness.

Having edited your post to reflect precisely my response to this point, why did you leave this in here?


How can it seem like nonsense when you're saying what I said? Yes, of course the uncontrollable factor means that you're not guaranteed to find a buyer, and of course your understanding of a fair price depends on whether you get what you priced your work for. My point was that this inherent uncontrollability means that the fair price for your work is not a primary deciding factor in your success in selling anything. In fact, it is only when other people see your work as worth buying that it sells, whether that requires a fair price or otherwise. That is, your success or failure as an artist trying to make a living is Not About Fairness.
I think it seems like nonsense to me because I don't understand why you felt the need to say it at all. It also seems like nonsense to me because it is so weirdly on about some points and so weirdly off about others that it leaves me wondering just what you think the word "fair" means in regards to pricing.

Are you aware that the NEA and the Graphic Artists Guild both issue regularly updated Ethical Pricing Guidelines? There is such a thing as fair and unfair pricing in creative work. If a price is fair or unfair, it will affect whether it sells and/or whether it is worth it to sell it.

In addition to that, there is the question of whether the seller feels they are getting a fair price.

And in addition to that, there is the question of whether the market is receptive at all, which has nothing to do with fairness.

I think it seems like nonsense to me because I don't understand why you felt the need to say it at all.
The question was asked "Is it fair?". My response was "The question, in the current system of trade, is ultimately unimportant, and here's why". Seems relevant enough to me.

It also seems like nonsense to me because it is so weirdly on about some points and so weirdly off about others that it leaves me wondering just what you think the word "fair" means in regards to pricing.

Are you aware that the NEA and the Graphic Artists Guild both issue regularly updated Ethical Pricing Guidelines? There is such a thing as fair and unfair pricing in creative work. If a price is fair or unfair, it will affect whether it sells and/or whether it is worth it to sell it.

In addition to that, there is the question of whether the seller feels they are getting a fair price.

And in addition to that, there is the question of whether the market is receptive at all, which has nothing to do with fairness.
I think it's a cross-Atlantic thing, because with yourself, as with quite a few posters on these forums, I occasionally get the feeling that we're speaking completely different languages that happen to use the same lexical tokens for completely different meanings.

No. I was aware of neither the NEA nor the Graphic Artists Guild, primarily because as a British person, neither of these have any impact on the Arts here. Fairness, as applies to the valuation of a work in the culture that I understand, is not something that is explicitly constructed through an assortment of guidelines set by a central body, but is based more on a sort of intuitive energy economic. There is no explicit guideline as to what constitutes fair pricing, except in a sort of general sense as bits and pieces of laws have applied varying levels of protectionism to goods of certain kinds, but that's the way our society works - it, like trade, is fundamentally pragmatic rather than idealist.

Writers do not factor their time spent actually writing into costs of production because that time varies so wildly from project to project and is so difficult (if not impossible) to document that it cannot be factored into the per unit pricing of each book for which they will receive a royalty upon sale.

any particular novel takes a particular amount of time to write. time invested doing one thing is time not invested doing something else. thus there is a cost to choosing one thing over another. perhaps, in the end, it pays off. perhaps not. but that is a huge part of the cost of the first copy of a novel. the second copy does not bear this cost at all, as the novel has already been written. instead, it bears the costs of reproduction, marketing, etc., which the first bore as well. thus the cost of the first copy is much greater than the cost of any subsequent copies.

the fact that calculating this cost can't be accurately done antecedently is irrelevant to the point at hand.

The question was asked "Is it fair?". My response was "The question, in the current system of trade, is ultimately unimportant, and here's why". Seems relevant enough to me.


I think it's a cross-Atlantic thing, because with yourself, as with quite a few posters on these forums, I occasionally get the feeling that we're speaking completely different languages that happen to use the same lexical tokens for completely different meanings.

No. I was aware of neither the NEA nor the Graphic Artists Guild, primarily because as a British person, neither of these have any impact on the Arts here. Fairness, as applies to the valuation of a work in the culture that I understand, is not something that is explicitly constructed through an assortment of guidelines set by a central body, but is based more on a sort of intuitive energy economic. There is no explicit guideline as to what constitutes fair pricing, except in a sort of general sense as bits and pieces of laws have applied varying levels of protectionism to goods of certain kinds, but that's the way our society works - it, like trade, is fundamentally pragmatic rather than idealist.
Okay, I see. I think you're right that I misunderstood you based on differing uses of the terms.

any particular novel takes a particular amount of time to write. time invested doing one thing is time not invested doing something else. thus there is a cost to choosing one thing over another. perhaps, in the end, it pays off. perhaps not. but that is a huge part of the cost of the first copy of a novel. the second copy does not bear this cost at all, as the novel has already been written. instead, it bears the costs of reproduction, marketing, etc., which the first bore as well. thus the cost of the first copy is much greater than the cost of any subsequent copies.

the fact that calculating this cost can't be accurately done antecedently is irrelevant to the point at hand.
That is completely true in all areas of creative endeavor, except that it affects writers the least because their work is so inward and portable (both physically and mentally) that time spent writing the novel can actually also be time spent doing something else -- for many writers. The process is so variable, that is why it cannot be calculated as a cost of production.

Okay, I see. I think you're right that I misunderstood you based on differing uses of the terms.
Great, so we've resolved that little difficulty! :)

Oh my, this is still going?
*goes out in a puff of smoke*

A sad little argument. Clearly our first 10,000 years were superior times with...greater rate of scientific progress. :rolleyes:

has anyone actually quantified this in terms of innovations per capita per year or something?

That is completely true in all areas of creative endeavor

good, so then we are agreed that the real issue at stake is not so much one of incentives to create, but of funding for initial research and/or development.

because it seems that this is where the heart of the matter lies. doing creative work has a high initial cost, which is not present in subsequent copies. moreover, most creative work undertaken will not ultimately wind up creating much of value, but what will pan out cannot be predicted (well, not entirely, at least - we could probably fairly reliably pick out certain categories of things that won't go anywhere). but the collective, social benefits of innovation are ridiculously high. so the question is, how best to justly maximize the social benefits of innovation and deal with the costs of initial development.

has anyone actually quantified this in terms of innovations per capita per year or something?

You would first have to define innovation, and then there would be vast swaths of time during which many things would be invented but we wouldn't have years for it. Maybe you should do it by centuries? Even then, the ancient world would be poorly represented, and are we saying that an invention should include something that wasn't created but discovered, and are ideas innovations, and... yadda yadda yadda.

good, so then we are agreed that the real issue at stake is not so much one of incentives to create, but of funding for initial research and/or development.

because it seems that this is where the heart of the matter lies. doing creative work has a high initial cost, which is not present in subsequent copies. moreover, most creative work undertaken will not ultimately wind up creating much of value, but what will pan out cannot be predicted (well, not entirely, at least - we could probably fairly reliably pick out certain categories of things that won't go anywhere). but the collective, social benefits of innovation are ridiculously high. so the question is, how best to justly maximize the social benefits of innovation and deal with the costs of initial development.
Funding R&D is only relevant to holders of patents. That is only one prong of IP. It has no bearing on people who produce copyrightable creative work and zero relevance to the issue of trademarks. That is what I have been trying to tell you. The initial costs that are so prohibitive to creative work unless the creators can earn money by them are far, far greater for inventors and scientific innovators than they are for the creative arts.

Leaving aside that I think your whole "everyone should work for the state" idea is 100% bad, nothing you are saying is applicable to holders of copyright, who have been the primary subject of the thread's discussion.

Funding R&D is only relevant to holders of patents. That is only one prong of IP. It has no bearing on people who produce copyrightable creative work

learn 2 opportunity cost

learn 2 opportunity cost
Two nouns, a numeral, and a verb. When is the sentence going to be finished?

learn 2 opportunity cost

I used opportunity costs to get my girlfriend to buy me lunch earlier today.

Its an economic principle, Muravyets.

I used opportunity costs to get my girlfriend to buy me lunch earlier today.

nice!

You would first have to define innovation, and then there would be vast swaths of time during which many things would be invented but we wouldn't have years for it. Maybe you should do it by centuries? Even then, the ancient world would be poorly represented, and are we saying that an invention should include something that wasn't created but discovered, and are ideas innovations, and... yadda yadda yadda.

well, there would be some inherent fuzziness, but we could probably at least make a good attempt at quantifying it. i'd actually be surprised if this hasn't already been done by somebody.