Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Copyrights

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:35:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Copyrights are valuable to economic growth but become harmful if they are maintained for too long. A good lifespan for copyrights is about 10 to 20 years, or until the death of the author or artist. After a copyright has expired it should enter into the public domain.

Take the Cthulhu mythos for example; Lovecraft wrote the original "call of Cthulhu", which has influenced various other Cthulhu mythos. Each new story has contributed to the economic growth of the literary, film, and video game industries. If the monopoly had been maintained, there would be far less Cthulhu stories, games, and movies, resulting in far less profit.

Once a product becomes ingrained in a culture or subculture, it is more economically beneficial to allow reproduction of that product. It is also illogical to claim rights to something that has become ingrained into a culture or subculture. There is nothing new under the sun, and if every idea in history was slapped with a permanent copyright status, than there would be no economic growth; every new idea is a variation of an old idea to some degree.

Going back to my Cthulhu example; the ancient aliens show on the history channel is a variation of the Cthulhu mythos. It was influenced by the Mthyos either directly or indirectly, an Lovecraft could have easily claimed "the chariots of the gods" to be a copyright of "the call of Cthulhu".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:59:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
is there anybody that doesn't think that current copyright laws give authors a ridiculous amount of time before it enters public domain?

The general feeling to anybody who looks at the issue is either decrease copyright limits or eliminate it all together. I'm against the latter, but for the former.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:38:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the past I've wanted the abolition of copyright. I tend to agree now that they should just exist in the short term. But that doesn't seem like a practical goal, with the influence of companies like Disney, unless we passed an amendment about it.

I also think that piracy, in our current time and context, actually increases economic growth. Most people will still buy CDs. The piraters are just popularizing the music by getting a hold of more it easier and inevitably sharing it.

I think there are other ways we could incentivize invention without bestowing intellectual monopoly.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).
My work here is, finally, done.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:44:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

Ummmmm. You might want to check this out.

http://libraries.wright.edu...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

But you can't simply copyright "airplane". You make an improvement and copyright that. First was the iPod, then came MP3 players, or maybe it was vice versa.

True, it makes it more difficult to enter, but no more risky than trying to invent something from scratch, either. Personally, I would rather invest in a competitor to an existing product, even if their overhead is more, than with someone just starting out (unless they showed promise, of course).
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:54:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:44:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.


Ummmmm. You might want to check this out.

http://libraries.wright.edu...

Nice.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:16:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:44:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.


Ummmmm. You might want to check this out.

http://libraries.wright.edu...

All of those patents are now public domain.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:22:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:46:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

But you can't simply copyright "airplane". You make an improvement and copyright that.

If you patent the technology any new invention that uses that patent must pay a royalty regardless of new innovations. Patenting the new innovations simply grants you a monopoly on the innovation, it does not grant you a right to ignore the previous patent.

Say I make a parody of "Hey there Delilah". Even though I added new lyrics, the tune still belongs to the Plain White T's.

First was the iPod, then came MP3 players, or maybe it was vice versa.

True, it makes it more difficult to enter, but no more risky than trying to invent something from scratch, either.
Nothing is ever invented from scratch. New invention are made possible by old inventions.

Personally, I would rather invest in a competitor to an existing product, even if their overhead is more, than with someone just starting out (unless they showed promise, of course).

So you are not a venture capitalist. That point is irrelevant, as investing differs depending on the investor.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:31:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:38:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
In the past I've wanted the abolition of copyright. I tend to agree now that they should just exist in the short term. But that doesn't seem like a practical goal, with the influence of companies like Disney, unless we passed an amendment about it.

I also think that piracy, in our current time and context, actually increases economic growth. Most people will still buy CDs. The piraters are just popularizing the music by getting a hold of more it easier and inevitably sharing it.

Piracy does not increase economic growth, music sharing does. Parodies and covers also increase economic growth, but parodying and covering music are not the same as pirating music. sharing a legal copy also increases growth. By sharing I am referring to the temporary borrowing of another person's copy; such as the radio, TV networking, or a library.
I think there are other ways we could incentivize invention without bestowing intellectual monopoly.

I agree, but in the early stages it is important to prevent premature competition, in order to ensure that the original artist and/or author can profit off their idea. If competition starts too early, it can decentivize innovation, by increasing the risk involved.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 8:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 7:22:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:46:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

But you can't simply copyright "airplane". You make an improvement and copyright that.

If you patent the technology any new invention that uses that patent must pay a royalty regardless of new innovations. Patenting the new innovations simply grants you a monopoly on the innovation, it does not grant you a right to ignore the previous patent.

Say I make a parody of "Hey there Delilah". Even though I added new lyrics, the tune still belongs to the Plain White T's.

Correct. Although, parody is a type of fair use, so it kind of doesn't really apply.

First was the iPod, then came MP3 players, or maybe it was vice versa.

True, it makes it more difficult to enter, but no more risky than trying to invent something from scratch, either.
Nothing is ever invented from scratch. New invention are made possible by old inventions.

Personally, I would rather invest in a competitor to an existing product, even if their overhead is more, than with someone just starting out (unless they showed promise, of course).

So you are not a venture capitalist. That point is irrelevant, as investing differs depending on the investor.

By the way, have we decided to switch to patents now? Because patents, while SIMILAR to copyright, are very different/in a different realm, and apply to completely different things.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 9:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:44:38 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.


Ummmmm. You might want to check this out.

http://libraries.wright.edu...

The wright brothers patented a particular sort of flying machine.

I was giving an extreme example to make a point. You can't actually patent a function or mechanism like flight.

However, you can patent, for instance, an unique catalyst which lead to synthesizing raw materials for a fraction of the price. Once the copyright is up, others can innovate using that catalyst to lower initial costs.

But instead of being overly complicated, I gave a thought experiment. You're like a student who says an explanation of comparative advantage is b.s. because wheat and wine prices don't reflect the Dow Jones.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:37:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see no reason to have copyrights. The only reason why a rival would be able to surpass an individual who invented X or Y is if they made a better version of X and Y. If X and Y are more intellectual than physical things, the case is still the same. Competition fosters innovation, and all that copyrights do is stagnate innovation. Surely you aren't in favour of denying the best products to the consumers, hmm?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:37:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I see no reason to have copyrights. The only reason why a rival would be able to surpass an individual who invented X or Y is if they made a better version of X and Y. If X and Y are more intellectual than physical things, the case is still the same. Competition fosters innovation, and all that copyrights do is stagnate innovation. Surely you aren't in favour of denying the best products to the consumers, hmm?

Without copyrights you destroy the monetary incentive for any company to invest in R and D. It's a trade off. You need to keep an incentive for innovation with copyright protection while maximizing others ability to build off those innovations.

Go tell a screenwriter that the moment he finishes a screenplay anyone who can get their hands on it can steal the entire thing. See how much material he is willing to put on the market.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 11:28:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 8:38:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/29/2012 7:22:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:46:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

But you can't simply copyright "airplane". You make an improvement and copyright that.

If you patent the technology any new invention that uses that patent must pay a royalty regardless of new innovations. Patenting the new innovations simply grants you a monopoly on the innovation, it does not grant you a right to ignore the previous patent.

Say I make a parody of "Hey there Delilah". Even though I added new lyrics, the tune still belongs to the Plain White T's.

Correct. Although, parody is a type of fair use, so it kind of doesn't really apply.

My point still stands. If I use the instrumental version, instead of recreating the music, it's not protected under fair use.
First was the iPod, then came MP3 players, or maybe it was vice versa.

True, it makes it more difficult to enter, but no more risky than trying to invent something from scratch, either.
Nothing is ever invented from scratch. New invention are made possible by old inventions.

Personally, I would rather invest in a competitor to an existing product, even if their overhead is more, than with someone just starting out (unless they showed promise, of course).

So you are not a venture capitalist. That point is irrelevant, as investing differs depending on the investor.

By the way, have we decided to switch to patents now? Because patents, while SIMILAR to copyright, are very different/in a different realm, and apply to completely different things.

They are of the same nature. The same clause of the constitution grants congress the power to issue patents and copyrights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 11:34:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:37:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I see no reason to have copyrights. The only reason why a rival would be able to surpass an individual who invented X or Y is if they made a better version of X and Y. If X and Y are more intellectual than physical things, the case is still the same. Competition fosters innovation, and all that copyrights do is stagnate innovation. Surely you aren't in favour of denying the best products to the consumers, hmm?

But if there is no profit, than there is no incentive. Say a big label uses a famous artist to compete against a local band signed to an indie label, using the local band's songs; the local band would have no incentive to keep playing. Say a famous Arthur decided to rip off the book of a unknown author. Again no incentive to write the book. Say George Lucas rips off a script written by a wannabe scifi writer. Again, no incentive to write the script.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The principle of patents and copyrights is that the originator has a natural monopoly on the work, meaning that he can choose to keep it a secret forever. Inventions and copyrighted works can cost very large sums to develop. New drugs cost $500 million to $1.5 billion, and many fail before they make it to market. The movie "The Green Lantern" was a failure because the $200 million it took in did not cover the development costs. Some books take years to complete.

Patents run at most 17 years. U.S. copyrights are now the life of the author plus 75 years. The long copyright times mainly affect blockbuster-hits that maintain value for so long. Think Disney movies, probably Star Wars, some famous novels) The originator's family may considerably outlive the author, so some substantial time is reasonable. Maybe 50 years rather than 75, but some long time. The suggestion has been made that a standard system for paying royalties should be adopted, so it would be easier to use the material.

Due to the way copyright law evolved in the US, everything prior to 1923 is now in the public domain.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 12:31:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 1:35:18 PM, DanT wrote:
There is nothing new under the sun, and if every idea in history was slapped with a permanent copyright status, than there would be no economic growth; every new idea is a variation of an old idea to some degree.

Ideas cannot be protected, only specific embodiments in inventions and copyrighted works. You can use the ideas in "The Lord of the Rings" to write new novels; in fact there is a genre of just that.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:04:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:37:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I see no reason to have copyrights. The only reason why a rival would be able to surpass an individual who invented X or Y is if they made a better version of X and Y. If X and Y are more intellectual than physical things, the case is still the same. Competition fosters innovation, and all that copyrights do is stagnate innovation. Surely you aren't in favour of denying the best products to the consumers, hmm?

Do you see a reason to have locks on the doors of stores and warehouses?

Surely you aren't in favour of denying products to the consumers that don't want to pay for them, hmm?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:18:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

The Wright brothers patented almost everything, and it did stifle the airplane industry for quite some time, especially the American aviation industry.

Nevertheless, protecting intellectual property is as important as protecting physical property, people are entitled to the financial benefits of thier work. Stealing your ideas isn't really that different than stealing the stuff you buy, either way you have been robbed of the product of your labor.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:52:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:46:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/29/2012 4:41:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:46:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Why do copyrights inhibit economic growth?
Can't you use the material if you pay a royalty? This way I use something to generate money, and the true inventor can make new inventions (ideally).

Imagine if the wright brothers were able to patent "airplanes." All of the innovation, new companies, new designs, and new jobs that would come out of creating an "airplane industry" would be stifled because the Wright Brothers would act as a barrier to entry. What incentive is there to design new planes if it will just be owned by the wright brothers? Why have capitalist competition between types of airplanes? "Royalties" create an "overhead cost" which makes it harder for anyone to enter the airplane industry without previous financial backing. The royalties decreases the incentive of financial backers to fund new airplane companies.

But you can't simply copyright "airplane". You make an improvement and copyright that. First was the iPod, then came MP3 players, or maybe it was vice versa.

True, it makes it more difficult to enter, but no more risky than trying to invent something from scratch, either. Personally, I would rather invest in a competitor to an existing product, even if their overhead is more, than with someone just starting out (unless they showed promise, of course).

That is a reason for copyright protection, not against. It takes time and money to bring a new idea to market, the reason for copyright and patent protection is to make innovation a financially worthwhile endeavor. It would always be better to invest in a company that waits to see if the idea works, and has no investment in R&D to recover.

I'm a part owner of a software company with a great new product, we spent three years and a lot of money developing our idea and now we spend a lot of time talking to investors. The first thing they ALWAYS ask is "Do you have this patented?". I'm pretty sure that is the investor equivalent of saying "Whoa, good idea, can I rip you off, or do I actually have to invest in the company to make money off this?".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 8:43:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could you argue that the patent forces other inventors to innovate? Wright brothers get a patent on the airplane so the next guy has to invent a helicopter?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:31:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 8:43:05 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Could you argue that the patent forces other inventors to innovate? Wright brothers get a patent on the airplane so the next guy has to invent a helicopter?

Maybe, but I'm not sure that inventing something that somebody else already invented is properly called inventing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 3:20:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 12:31:41 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/29/2012 1:35:18 PM, DanT wrote:
There is nothing new under the sun, and if every idea in history was slapped with a permanent copyright status, than there would be no economic growth; every new idea is a variation of an old idea to some degree.

Ideas cannot be protected, only specific embodiments in inventions and copyrighted works. You can use the ideas in "The Lord of the Rings" to write new novels; in fact there is a genre of just that.

Yes they are; that is why the Da Vinci Code faced a number of law suites.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 6:30:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 10:31:16 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/30/2012 8:43:05 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Could you argue that the patent forces other inventors to innovate? Wright brothers get a patent on the airplane so the next guy has to invent a helicopter?

Maybe, but I'm not sure that inventing something that somebody else already invented is properly called inventing.

The point is that if there's a patent on something it might force an inventor to come up with a different idea.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler