So you are perfectly OK with laboring for years to conceive, design, and build as unique work of art, writing, or software, from which you could earn a living, and then it being OK for me to just slap my name/label on it and out-market you, taking all the gains and leaving you destitute?
Or, are you just someone who does not expect to ever create anything of value?
It’s important to keep in mind that intellectual property is a notion that arose in Western Europe in the early modern period and can still seem foreign to much of the globe. Even if nearly all countries have now implemented IP legislation for trade reasons, in practice it might go unenforced unless the plaintiff is politically connected. The cutthroat environment that you describe above is still how things often work in Asia, but people go on creating works of their imagination regardless.
I don’t think that’s quite the takedown of the gp you might it is; copyright doesn’t really ensure any of those things. It looks like think you’re conflating a few things here, particularly attribution and profit. I don’t think copyright guarantees either.
The gp was speaking about the purpose behind creating copyright, which is to produce the maximum number of works, while you were looking at the results to the author, the goals of recognition and payment.
Only specific representations are protected: non-derivative readaptations are generally permitted (the thorny issue is whether it is derivative or not: c.f. Disney vs Pixar). Additionally, the US specifically avoids guaranteeing profits for works by endorsing “sweat-of-the-brow” or effort-based value judgements. Doing otherwise is an implicit validation of communism: to each according to their effort, which is counter to the distribution policy under capitalism.
>>copyright doesn’t really ensure any of those things.
Indeed, it does not guarantee profit or earning a living (indeed, there are many works with great labor that earn a loss). But it does give OP a grounds to pursue remedies to recover and prevent further infringement were I to copy his/her stuff, and out-sell it under my label.
The mention of "years of work" was not to imply that profit is somehow to be communist-style equating of profit-to-effort. It was to contrast a massive effort often required to create a serious work of literature, art, or software, vs. the trivial effort required to pump out new copies and slap your name on it.
Any sense of ethics would find it unfair for Alan to put in years of work to create a truly unique and valuable work, and Bob to claim it as his and make all the profits. And that is the moral case for copyright.
I also notice that OP said he's against Capitalism, but did not say he was OK with Bob taking Alan's work and profits as his own.
That said, the implementation, constraints (fair use), and terms are vastly arguable.
All technological discoveries and developments are owed to the historical work of all mankind. It would take quite the nerve to gesture one's own short life as even capable of a single one of such marvels.
To answer your question: No, I am not OK with capitalism, which is why I don't need such philosophically vacant concepts like copyright to justify exploiting the hard work of others.
>>All technological discoveries and developments are owed to the historical work of all mankind
Yup, which is where they go when the copyright expires. And, I am definitely on board with shorter expiration terms, and entirely against these endless extensions won by lobbying of corps like Disney.
While you've said you are "not OK with capitalism", you haven't said that you are OK with my proposal. Why?
And yes, I am familiar with the original phrasing "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". That does not mean that there is no possible moral ground behind the law. It only means that the authors of the law found it sufficient to mention the utilitarian grounds, and indeed that founding group tended to look first for utilitarian basis for the rights they wrote down.
> So you are perfectly OK with laboring for years to conceive
Then why doesn't Einstein get a patent on Theory of relativity? Why is it okay for scientists to work for decades and have no IP rights over it?
Why does is our system designed so that only corporations can afford the cost of a patent, and most people in the developing world could never afford them?
And after paying all that money we get patents on blatantly fake inventions, like the Antigravity Machine?
You're mixing up patents, copyright, and plagiarism. Similar but not the same ideas.
Copyright exists to protect a creator's right to the proceeds of their creative output. Copyright is pretty broad. If I tell a different story with your characters I'm still violating copyright.
Patents exist to protect an inventor's right to the proceeds of their invention. If you invent a true hoverboard and I buy one, reverse engineer it, and sell copies I'm in trouble. But if I am merely inspired by your creation to go invent my own hover tech that works differently I can sell that just fine.
Descriptions of the real world as it already exits do not get copyright or patent regardless of the work put in. No matter how good a job you do creating a map of New York you can't prevent someone else from making a map of New York.
You are totally missing the point - the point made in the previous post was, that intellectual labour should be rewarded with some sort of IP, so that the creator of it is rewarded. The categorisation of different types of IP is not fundamental.
The counterpoint I made is that we do not reward some types of intellectual labour at all. And some of the greatest contributions to humanity are of the type, that is not rewarded. So the argument as initially presented is flawed:
Either the authors of intellectual labour do not need to be rewarded with ownership, perhaps other types of compensation is more appropriate
OR
Authors of scientific intellectual labour are currently unfairly exploited and should be compensated
I understood your previous post to be arguing against copyright on the basis of scientific work not counting. If you meant copyright is fine but the way we compensate scientific work is bad then I agree. It's a complex issue because I don't think you should be able to copyright a factual claim but I do think scientific work should be better compensated. I don't know of a solution to that problem but I would be eager to hear one.
>>Authors of scientific intellectual labour are currently unfairly exploited and should be compensated
Yup, that is very true.
And it's why a number of universities are creating patent offices to help their scientists commercialize their works (with the university getting a share; I'm not up to date on how fair the sharing is)
Or, are you just someone who does not expect to ever create anything of value?