←back to thread

170 points bookofjoe | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
chuckadams ◴[] No.43644704[source]
It certainly is liberating all our creative works from our possession...
replies(5): >>43644787 #>>43644796 #>>43644830 #>>43644838 #>>43644929 #
1. Philpax ◴[] No.43644796[source]
I'm glad we're seeing the death of the concept of owning an idea. I just hope the people who were relying on owning a slice of the noosphere can find some other way to sustain themselves.
replies(4): >>43644916 #>>43644981 #>>43645312 #>>43645501 #
2. robertlagrant ◴[] No.43644916[source]
Did we previously have the concept of owning an idea?
replies(3): >>43645366 #>>43646568 #>>43647381 #
3. 01HNNWZ0MV43FF ◴[] No.43645312[source]
I just wish it was not, as usual, the people with the most money benefiting first and most
4. observationist ◴[] No.43645366[source]
Lawyers and people with lots of money figured out how to make even bigger piles of money for lawyers and people with lots of money from people who could make things like art, music, and literature.

They occasionally allowed the people who actually make things to become wealthy in order to incentivize other people who make things to continue making things, but mostly it's just the people with lots of money (and the lawyers) who make most of the money.

Studios and publishers and platforms somehow convinced everyone that the "service" and "marketing" they provided was worth a vast majority of the revenue creative works created.

This system should be burned to the ground and reset, and any indirect parties should be legally limited to at most 15% of the total revenues generated by a creative work. We're about to see Hollywood quality AI video - the cost of movie studios, music, literature, and images is nominal. There are already creative AI series and ongoing works that beat 90's level visual effects and storyboarding being created and delivered via various platforms for free (although the exposure gets them ad revenue.)

We better figure this stuff out, fast, or it's just going to be endless rentseeking by rich people and drama from luddites.

replies(1): >>43654890 #
5. theF00l ◴[] No.43645501[source]
Copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Favourite case law that reinforces this case was between David Bowie and the Gallagher brothers.

I would argue patents are closer to protecting ideas, and those are alive and well.

I do agree copyright law is terribly outdated but I also feel the pain of the creatives.

6. dingnuts ◴[] No.43646568[source]
patents and copyrights allow ownership of ideas and of the specific expression of ideas
7. sorokod ◴[] No.43647381[source]
Keeping technology secret or forbidden is as old as humanity itself.
replies(1): >>43674983 #
8. robertlagrant ◴[] No.43654890{3}[source]
I'm not following how any of the things you mention are "ideas".
9. robertlagrant ◴[] No.43674983{3}[source]
That doesn't sound like ownership, though.