NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5420312" data-attributes="member: 19675">Well you just basically said that once I release IP into the market, you would prefer a rule that I no longer control access to it.  Again, this devalues IP immensely.  With such a regime, I can no longer sell or license my IP to others who may be better able to deliver it to the public.if I perform a song at my local cafe, 3 customers and 2 baristas hear it.  If I sell it to Sony, that song may be heard by almost 50 people (<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />), maybe more! But if Sony can't enforce IP rights like deciding if & when the song will ever be released, they're not going to to buy it from me in the first place.Those exclusionary rights are why movie production companies pay $10K $50K, $100k or more for "Options" on scripts.  If someone can just walk up and produce a script that Paramount felt wasn't worth doing while Paramount has the rights to it, then those scriptwriters will never see those "options."No, see above.  What you're proposing is extremely destructive of the value of IP. The ability to leverage property- of any kind- for profit is one of the essential rights in the bundle.  Some would call it the single most important parts.  Destroy it, and what's left?  Hmmm...the ability to use it for yourself.That's less intervention than setting the rules that everyone gets to follow.As for harm, take a look at the history mentioned upthread: States that protect IP with copyright, trademark & patent laws have more internal innovation than those that don't.If all you're saying is that its better to have more products in the market than fewer and that anyone should be able to sell products that have been removed from the market by their creators, then this "common interest" to which you keep alluding is looking more and more like simply letting others benefit from work they didn't do. Besides, the State has rules to deal with genuinely harmful monopolies- Anti-trust.</blockquote>

Verification