> I do want to say something explicitly: you've been very respectful and considerate and I really appreciate that. That's an increasingly rare thing on Hacker News.
I hope that would've been expected :)
I think you make very valid points regarding the potential organizational benefits of IP for large scale endeavors. Actually one of the core arguments I make against my own anti-IP position is whether a large-scale hollywood production would be possible without copyright.
I.e. Much like Mozart or Beethoven who produced wonderful music without IP protection, I'm fairly sure a Spielberg or Scorsese would push the boundaries of their art whether or not they could earn hundreds of millions (but as long as they'd get enough to live and prosper). Same could be said of the great actors and musicians.
The best scientists & engineers are no different than the best artists or athletes. They do what they do, because this is what they are interested in.
I even think this is true for the greatest startup founders. Though they end up quite wealthy, I doubt this is what wakes them up, and what they dream about.
Certainly it would be true of pharmaceutical scientists as well.
The real question (which is analogous to what you brought up) is whether there would be sufficient resources to pay the required staff, marketers, and other non-creatives to put the greatest films together.
I don't know, frankly. I suspect at the high end, it would happen. My hunch is that the vast majority of money due only to IP goes to lawyers and operational business executives, not the creative geniuses.
I also suspect that without these massive giant corporations, and the onerous FDA regulations, we'd have hundreds of smaller, more innovative firms. Yes there would be more risk, but I think overall outcomes would be better because orders of magnitude more solutions would be brought to the marketplace and the best would rise to the top.
But I'd oppose IP regardless. My fundamental opposition to IP is not practical, but ideological. I just can't square it with the absolute freedom of speech that I believe in (and believe is more important than anything else). I do simultaneously believe that greater freedom bodes well for prosperity, but that's not why I support greater freedom.
I'm kind of tired, you'll probably be able to poke more than a few holes in what I wrote .. if so, I'll answer tomorrow. Cheers.
> I do want to say something explicitly: you've been very respectful and considerate and I really appreciate that. That's an increasingly rare thing on Hacker News.
I hope that would've been expected :)
I think you make very valid points regarding the potential organizational benefits of IP for large scale endeavors. Actually one of the core arguments I make against my own anti-IP position is whether a large-scale hollywood production would be possible without copyright.
I.e. Much like Mozart or Beethoven who produced wonderful music without IP protection, I'm fairly sure a Spielberg or Scorsese would push the boundaries of their art whether or not they could earn hundreds of millions (but as long as they'd get enough to live and prosper). Same could be said of the great actors and musicians.
The best scientists & engineers are no different than the best artists or athletes. They do what they do, because this is what they are interested in.
I even think this is true for the greatest startup founders. Though they end up quite wealthy, I doubt this is what wakes them up, and what they dream about.
Certainly it would be true of pharmaceutical scientists as well.
The real question (which is analogous to what you brought up) is whether there would be sufficient resources to pay the required staff, marketers, and other non-creatives to put the greatest films together.
I don't know, frankly. I suspect at the high end, it would happen. My hunch is that the vast majority of money due only to IP goes to lawyers and operational business executives, not the creative geniuses.
I also suspect that without these massive giant corporations, and the onerous FDA regulations, we'd have hundreds of smaller, more innovative firms. Yes there would be more risk, but I think overall outcomes would be better because orders of magnitude more solutions would be brought to the marketplace and the best would rise to the top.
But I'd oppose IP regardless. My fundamental opposition to IP is not practical, but ideological. I just can't square it with the absolute freedom of speech that I believe in (and believe is more important than anything else). I do simultaneously believe that greater freedom bodes well for prosperity, but that's not why I support greater freedom.
I'm kind of tired, you'll probably be able to poke more than a few holes in what I wrote .. if so, I'll answer tomorrow. Cheers.