You'll throw Hollywood and most of the publishing industry out of business overnight if you "abolish" copyright. Not a good idea to throw so many people out of work.
Copyright needs to be reformed, absolutely. Not abolished.
You'll throw Hollywood and most of the publishing industry out of business overnight if you "abolish" copyright. Not a good idea to throw so many people out of work.
Copyright needs to be reformed, absolutely. Not abolished.
> You'll throw Hollywood and most of the publishing industry out of business overnight
Any downsides?
Even if you don't have sympathy on an individual level for hundreds of thousands of ordinary, working-class people with decades-long careers suddenly losing their livelihood (and you really should have sympathy for them), you should at least care on a selfish level for the increased risk of civil unrest that such a socioeconomic upheaval can cause.
I'm from a country that transitioned from free market and private property to planned economy and socialism, and then, 70 years later, back again. I'm sure it'll be fine. You can't scare me with such things :)
> You'll throw Hollywood and most of ...
Compared to the economic and human disruptions of shipping most of America's manufacturing jobs overseas since WWII, that sounds very minor.
Yes, I understand that Hollywood & publishing carry much higher social status than mere manufacturing, for the "right" people to object at them being tossed.
No, I'm not disagreeing with your "reform not abolish" ideal.
> that sounds very minor
Are you arguing that a lesser evil (compared to the evil of offshoring) is not evil? Is offshoring supposed to be relevant here? Why bring this up?
"Compared to the economic and human disruptions of shipping most of America's manufacturing jobs overseas since WWII"
That didn't happen overnight and was not done out of an immediate law change.
Which side you're taking here? Sudden and Legal are pretty unobjectionable to folks who aren't pro-copyright for other reasons. But could sound excellent to (say) folks who "bought and owned" digital property...then had their access cut off suddenly and legally.
ps - If you're not aware that the offshoring was a legal change, you might want to read the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_Unit...
Hollywood was created by ignoring copyrights.
Hollywood was created by ignoring (Edison) patents, not copyright.
On the other hand, Disney's success is largely owed to public domain adaptations, and for a century, it did its best to shrink the public domain and expand copyright.
Hollywood was created by ignoring copyrights.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-histor...
They may have ignored patents too, but they build their work on copyright infringement.
I stand corrected. They apparently ignored copyright too (in retrospect, using existing screenplays made sense for the early industry).
Well whole USA education system was jump started by ignoring copyright on English books and reprinting pirated copies en masse for extremely cheap.
Your argument is non-sequitur and nihilist. America was created by colonizing Native land, so should we somehow evict hundreds of millions of people in the name of justice? (/rhetorical)
Original sin is a sunk cost. If you want to make the world better, you focus on what's right for tomorrow, not what was right for a century ago.
I don't see an argument for removing copyright being a good thing other than people wanting other's work for free, not just free to use but free to sell as their own.
So, is Hollywood a good or bad thing?
Was it is a good thing and it was created by ignoring copyrights and therefore we shouldn't protect copyrights as an absolute because other good things can be created out of it, or is it a bad thing and is using that copyright to restrict others.
You can't have it both ways. My point was just that defense of Hollywood is a terrible example.
It's not only Hollywood, these ML tankies that want to abolish private ownership will destroy pharmaceutical innovation. (This is where people's brains will turn off)
Why would a firm invest in research improving Super-Rare-Disease therapies if I don't get exclusive rights to the monetary benefit?
And to the inevitable room temperature IQ DSA crowd, why would the ML government with state research firms ever direct public resources to improving Super-Rare-Disease? Something that affects 1-in-10000 people doesn't deserve public resources like common diseases.
s/ancap/marxist leninist/
China seems to allocate resources to niche medical problems just fine, but maybe that’s because they have so much capacity due to population size.
They are a mixed economy overall, but the medical side of things is directly state owned or state funded.
Those good hearted pharma companies always going for the rare diseases and saving little kids, bless their hearts.
>And to the inevitable room temperature IQ DSA crowd, why would the AnCap government
>AnCap govenment
what?
> these anarcho-capitalists that want to abolish private ownership will destroy pharmaceutical innovation
> why would the AnCap government
Do you know what an anarcho-capitalist is? There is no way an ancap would want to destroy private ownership. They also are also anti-government everything.