tomBitonti
Adventurer
Seen the gun culture in the USA? Very similar dynamic going on.
Frankly, the business model for software is somewhat screwed already. My game group includes computer industry professionals...who pirate other people's software.
But here's the thing: if software were sold rather than licensed, you'd pay more up front, but since the transfer of ownership would be total, many of the security measures that get discussed would not be as desired by IP creators. Still, I don't see that happening, as explained before.
The thing is, IP protection is still effective at increasing the wealth of IP creators, which is a good thing since it encourages others to create IP. Those protections make people feel like the risks and investments in creating IP have a chance at being rewarded. To date, nobody has really come up with a better model. Tweaks, to improve it, yes, but nothing to replace it.
(Of course, if people simply played by the rules, consumer costs would fall...but you know what they say about rotten apples.)
Mostly I am replying to this paragraph:
The thing is, IP protection is still effective at increasing the wealth of IP creators, which is a good thing since it encourages others to create IP. Those protections make people feel like the risks and investments in creating IP have a chance at being rewarded. To date, nobody has really come up with a better model. Tweaks, to improve it, yes, but nothing to replace it.
Two notable tweeks were the Sunny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I understand both to be controversial, and to be viewed as providing a disproportionate benefit to the copyright holders relative to the benefits accrued by society as a whole.
In the statement that "increasing the weath of IP creators" is a "good" thing", since it "encourages others to create IP", I can find problems in the details.
Normally, increasing weath and encouraging the creation of IP should be good outcomes. Looking to the example of the Copyright Extension Act, I don't doubt the extension increased the wealth of current IP holders. However, that wealth overall was increased doesn't seem to necessarily follow. Many business opportunities which would have been enabled by not extending copyright were quashed. Additionaly, the effect to encourage new IP seems rather small.
In the details, in considering IP law and policy, I ask:
*) Does the law or policy increase the wealth of a few (e.g., current copyright holders), or of many (new potential IP creators, business partners of the IP creators)? Does the law or policy create wealth by increasing prices or by creating more product and more sales?
*) Does the law or policy effect a net increate in IP? There are at least these contrary trends which must be taken into account: Restrictions to existing IP. Refocusing resources on enforcement as opposed to IP creation. (This includes loss of utility due to protection mechanisms.) Reduction in availability due to price increases.
*) Does the law or policy encourage the use of new ideas, or is there a stifling effect?
Thx!
TomB