Why copyright makes no sense | The case against intellectual property



and authorize downloading and using for any other purpose is not allowed how about you don't tell me what I can and can't do with my property tik-tok is one of the most valuable startups in existence overtaking uber at seventy six billion dollars that's three times as much as SpaceX Elon Musk's companies set out to colonize nearby space what is tick-tocks business model people creating and sharing short videos riddled with copyrighted music pewdiepie has been the most subscribed to independent youtube channel for five years and is making billions and millions every year his secret sauce using other people's content and reacting to it in fact almost every successful creator on the platform has made profit off of copyrighted material authored by someone else it's no different if you go to Facebook Instagram or Twitter everything's at copying the copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy the success of the internet economy is based on copying information if you are connected to the Internet it's almost certain you have violated a copyright law in your country knowingly or not copying is the fundamental requirement for computers to function computer networks and the internet itself at their core depend on copying information from one device to another copying is the very nature of existence cells continuously reproduce to create and spread new life some organisms even borrow and share one another's genetic information to make new and improved copies of older living organisms other social structures as human species has always been based on copying we've evolved because we freely copy it's the first human to make a hand tool we followed the first man out of the caves and built first huts there were no patents on wheel agriculture domestication or printing press from generation to generation we relied on sharing copying and improving upon information in songs poems stories and tales we thrived because there were no restrictions on passing information from one person to another but what's natural is not always what makes it into law with strict copyright and patent laws implemented across the developed world natural exchange of information has been banned in favor of giving authors exclusive rights to copy and protect their works but copyright is unlike any other right it gives the class of authors supreme position over the rest of the society while a trading everyone else as criminals when they want to exercise their free speech and property rights that a full extend copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute someone's work it's the right to make copies of a protected work hence copied right patents are government protections on improvements and inventions and devices and processes at least that's on paper in reality copyrights and patents are monopolies monopolies where only the right holders are allowed to profit from the resources it's a monopoly because the more copyrights and patents the government protects the more restricted people are in exercising their property rights imagine you and your neighbor both mine stone on your respective properties then your neighbor decides to build a sculpture out of a stone in the world of copyright the very pattern of this culture is now protected under the law that means no one else is allowed to take full use of their property and make the same sculpture of their own since you also own stone you are allowed to do everything except for making that sculpture if your neighbor was to start the mining stone with a pickaxe they could patent this new production method and for 20 years you would not be allowed to use a pickaxe to mine your stone on your property the more people make copyrighted works from their stone less and less property rights you can exercise with your stone the more patents are registered the more restricted you are in what you can and can't do on your property that's because the logic behind copyright and patent laws treats ideas as scarce resources when in reality they are infinitely abundant copyright along with other forms of intellectual monopolies like patents trademarks and trade secrets is presented as a form of property rights but property rights function completely differently and were put in place for starkly contrasting reasons the justification of private property is the scarcity of resources there is a finite amount of land food wood minerals goods products and labor because of scarcity people can resolve the competition over scarce resources with conflict conflict breathes catastrophe if tangible things were abandoned there will be no conflict over them and there will be no need for property rights if somebody took your car you wouldn't worry about it because you could just get another one by magically snapping your fingers once possession of an abundant resource doesn't deprive anyone else of possessing it copyright laws are not protecting scarce tangible goods they are protecting intangible ideas that are abundant copyright law is protecting the idea of a particular sculpture but property rights protect the materials the sculpture is made off if you were to violate an author's copyright you would make a copy of their idea that dated and allowed to be made if you were to violate their property rights you would take their physical sculpture by force without their consent in both cases you would be accused of theft and state would use force to coerce you but only one of them would actually deprive them of their property the language of copyright advocacy is intentionally misleading the purpose is to hide the fact it has nothing to do with property rights and that they are actually government backed monopolies that grant authors a certain degree of partial ownership over everyone else's physical property the moral and ethical grounds for property rights is to prevent conflict and create a just system of redistribution of scarce resources what's the justification for copyright well the answer is more philosophical than copyright advocates are willing to admit actually it's entirely philosophical there is a utilitarian view that says copyright laws incentivize authors to create work and make profit and profit creates wealth and wealth benefits society but there is no clear evidence whether copyright actually stimulates more wealth creation many small creators are actually offering their works for free and free from royalties or copyright altogether like the author of the background music you're currently listening to copying is free advertising the ones enforcing their copyrights the most are actually big studios record labels and publishers not the authors themselves most copyrighted works never entered the public domain so the general public cannot profit from authors creations if anything copyright laws concentrate wealth within the class of right holders without copyright laws software engineers and authors could and probably would be even more creative and innovative as they would have to respond to competition instead of enjoying government protection as monopolies going back to the stone and sculpture example if there weren't intellectual monopolies everybody could benefit from improvements and creative works the cost of stone would go down because the mining process would advanced immediately and not once every two decades everybody could freely improve upon prior concepts and ideas and thus make stone products better and more available but even if copyright monopoly proved to create more wealth than a world with no copyright laws that still wouldn't justify their existence the goal of law is justice not well for maximization people are responsible for their own wealth not the government's what makes copyright holders monopoly on distribution unethical is that their copyrights Institute authors supremacy of the rest of the population and other human rights somehow it became socially acceptable to equate a mere process of replicating and binary code of information with violently attacking a shape in taking its crew hostage for ransom piracy piracy is a crime because it deprives other people of their property and endanger their lives through the use of force online piracy doesn't exist because downloading a copy of a publicly available work made by someone else doesn't deprive them of anything there is no use of force and they still have their original works perfectly intact you can steal someone's candle but you are not stealing by lighting your candle at theirs there is no theft in the ladder in fact its enrichment by sharing and copying information you can we have more information you can never have less you could still believe that copying someone's work is wrong but you can't use utilitarian justifications or make false equivalencies with property rights so some believe in copyright because everybody has a right to the fruit of their labor and the rights to be rewarded for labor is a natural right hence copyright monopoly is a natural right except this philosophy is an acceptable arbitrary a mere creation in the process of labor doesn't guarantee ownership if you work on someone else's property you don't own the result of your work if you steal my clay and mold the cup from it your creation doesn't grant you any rights if anything you owe me compensation for damages the process of creation is simply not enough to grant any sort of protection according to the copyright and the patent law scientific truths and abstract ideas like philosophical truths can be copyrighted or patented so when if theoretical scientist discovers a new equation or invents a new scientific method they are engaging in a creative process when an engineer applies the very same science to improve their products they are also engaging in a creative process and still the work of the engineer is rewarded while the work of the scientist is not what makes people believe it's fair and moral to reward entertainers inventors and artists and not theoretical scientists the line between what's protected and what isn't is entirely arbitrary it's not based on experience truth or evidence why are copyrights protected up to 90 years after the author's death and patents are protected for exactly 20 years since the date of filing why are copyrights automatically given to a created work but patents must be registered there is no rigorous standard based on which these lines were drawn it's a matter of lobbying power and the lines keep getting redrawn the European copyright directive now aims to hold platforms themselves liable for when their users violates the copyright law it's not enough that copyright monopoly already prevents you from using your property however you want if someone else uses your property to break the law you're guilty by association this would make platforms like YouTube Facebook Instagram SoundCloud dailymotion Reddit and snapchat liable at the moment of upload for any copyright infringement in uploads from users creators and artists copyright laws are a slippery slope for the sake of giving authors a higher status in the law we are trading our free speech and privacy copyright strikes are one of the most efficient ways to silence opposition or criticism and this has been abused by politicians and government officials across the world it doesn't matter what the reason for a copyright takedown is which turn authors into arbiters of justice since they can freely choose to enforce the law when it's convenient been a negative coverage but allow positive feedback the logical conclusion of enforcing copyright monopolies is an abolition of privacy copyright laws criminalized society to detect copyright infringement on computer networks constant monitoring of people's devices or their networks needs to be implemented if you advocate for stricter copyright laws you need to be ready to give up your property rights for the seeming benefit you are supposed to have by giving authors monopolies of our distribution of information you don't have to pay for copyright it works with money but you are paying for the existence of copyright and patent laws with your freedom of speech and property rights there are multiple avenues to make profit with creative work even without copyright monopolies personalization authenticity or accessibility can add value that can be copied together with advertising sponsorship donations or merchandising establishing streams of revenue on a freely available work is more profitable than ever before it should be the author's responsibility to figure out their income rather than to use state to force people to pay for that which is abundant

46 thoughts on “Why copyright makes no sense | The case against intellectual property

  1. classic copyright — I the creator reserve the right to profit off my work is OK, disney copyright us the distributor demand full and exclusive control over the distribution of this work is not. Originally copyright was to created to prevent publishers from effectively taking over an authors work, now it's being to used to empower publishers to take full control over works exactly the opposite of the intent. We do need to protect authors from big distributors/publishers but because the internet makes a lot of what distributors do irrelevant they are trying to make the government keep their failed and out-dated business model to continue artificially. Again this is exactly the opposite of protecting creators from distributors which was the original intent.

  2. In addressing the Utilitarian argument you overlooked the quite convincing argument that Patents force competitiors to find alternative solutions to existing innovations.
    Instead, you later straw-man this by saying patents limit innovations to only happen every 20 years.

    This is further complicated by the fact that additions to Patented creations are protected. So if you patented the BBQ and I invented a hotdog grill that went on to BBQs, it would be perfectly legal.

  3. SO I get where you're coming from but the problem I see with abandoning copyright is as follows: creative works such as games and movies will be entirely unprofitable since after selling one copy, everybody will simply be able to take that copy from the single buyer for free, and the dozens of people who likely labored for an extended period of time will ever be compensated for their work.

  4. "Copying is free advertizing" No it's not. Advertizing requires some kind of pointer to the source of the service or goods. You know, so others know where they can go acquire it. Not all forms of copying gives that. If I present to you the audio content of a random piece of music, you wouldn't know who did it. Herein is the core of the issue. I think the debate is over the parameters by which we allow copying. What attributions do we require, for what usages do we give licenses to the work? I'll present my take on this.

    From what I understand of copyright, the main justification is that we want to prevent untransformatively copying and publishing another's artistic work without attribution (or without a disclaimer about not knowing who originally made it), which is the final formulation of the IP violation that makes obvious the wrongness of it. My argument lies on some form of honesty, punishing lying (lying about who made the work), and therefore ensuring a trust that whatever you publish can be sure to give you the credit and profit that you deserve for your work, and if someone violates that you may stop them.

    I'll call "rightful usage" those uses of a work which do not purport to claim credit for making the original work. It is known that derivative works CONTAIN other works, and I think that most people are reasonable in knowing that not everything in a derivative work is made by the person doing the derivative work. The purview of copyright ought to be the protection of attribution of these other works from being wrongfully claimed by the person USING these works as building blocks for another work. I cannot claim to have made a work that I'm using in a derivative work.

    I'll call "rightful copyright action" the actions which safeguard that crucial bit that is intended to correctly attribute works. Those are mainly takedowns (if the person reuploads a work claiming it as their own) and corrections to metadata (e.g. video titles and descriptions) to add proper notices about attribution. These are not abuses because they do not punish rightful usages of a work. Rightful copyright action excludes abuses of copyright law, which is punishing someone who uses the work rightfully. Again rightful uses are mainly creative edits or uses of a work to build some other transformative work that does not depend solely on the original. That's the concept of fair use and these don't contain a claim to have made the used works. The main "selling point" of a review is the analysis of the critic, not the movie itself. Never once has anyone I've come across ever bring into question the distinction between a critic and some movie makers. Never once has any movie review ever been a claim of ownership ("ownership" in this sense being the attribution of who made the work, not in the sense of holding a distributed or usable copy of it) coming from the critic.

    Aside from holding as supreme values every imaginable liberty without any regard (this lack of regard for this makes your whole argument dubious, in my opinion) to how they might be used to create injustices in various ways (e.g. lying may be called a liberty of speech, but lying is most often unlawful, immoral, etc.), I don't think we can make a strong argument against rightful copyright action. We can view, create copies of and edit works. That's the rough outline of that kind of right to creative freedom. Okay. But most rights absolutely come along with some restrictions and responsibilities in not abusing them to infringe on others' rights. I think protections against others claiming your work ought to be a right. It's fair. What is the context at which you copy a work? Sharing to a friend does not imply any claim of ownership Creative edits do not either. Usage as accompanying material does not either (debatable but I'm willing to let this one through). Do you want to remove every regard for these distinctions?

    There's no intellectual process or societal improvements in ripping others' works claiming it as your own. Therefore, fair restrictions that are limited in extent have no considerable downside. Most of what you call "copying" (indeed, your undistinctive usage of this one word for every sense in which works can be reproduced is also dubious) is already viewed as rightful usages of a work by normal people. Only people like big media music shills screech when their work is used rightfully by someone else.

    If copyright infringement (the pure version, not the bastard de facto version we have in law, which punishes rightful usage of a work) is not theft (since your video depends on the strawman of saying "calling it theft is like comparing it with armed hostage-holding"), then what else call it? There absolutely is a wrongfulness contained in claiming another person's work as your own. What else would we call it if it's profitting off another person's work?

    Laws should be for justice? Well, justice would be to let artists be the ones claiming credit for their own work, and not let some unscrupulous nitwits profit off of work that is entirely of another person. To address your final point about the idea that copyright should be enforced equally or be erased altogether because of the loss of privacy of Big-Brother-esque surveilance to scan the whole internet to detect infringements, I'll say my system and the existing system is not a "no one shall commit copyright infringement" kind of deal, but rather a "if you decide to, you may pursue action against wrongful copyright infringements you find" decision.

  5. While I do agree with your video and abuse of power that big corporations use. I think there has to be something there to protect the little man.

    Even though there are free use music channels here on YouTube they ask that you credit them with the creation of that work and rightfully so, and like you said that’s free advertising and benefits them.

    However we don’t live in an ideal world as most people don’t care about where/who creates the content they like and some just out right take a creators content and pretend to be them which may yield them more revenue then the real creator which is wrong in my opinion

  6. I can’t run a game I bought for the ps4 on Xbox one x because I can’t copy the bios of the ps4 so I could boot the game properly. As a matter of fact, if the ps4 were to hypothetically use amd processors, and the Xbox were to use intel processors, then I could not build an emulator based off of the ps4 that would run on the Xbox because I would have to have a contract with amd to emulate their processors. The simple act of playing a physical ps4 disc on an emulator should be illegal according to copyright laws. As a matter of fact, according to copyright laws I cannot emulate the ps3, or the ps2, or the ps1. This is the biggest fallacy within the us law system due to a court case which decided to let a commercial emulator, Bleem, to be sold as long as the bios was different from the actual console and only play physical copies of the game. These laws are anticompetitive no matter how you spin them, I’m sure if you think about it long enough you can come up with the same type of example for every copyrighted thing known in existence. Why is Disney allowed to steal an individuals cartoon character? Because the individual is not important to society and does not have lawyers. Injustice is still injustice, even if it is law. Just because the parliament says that we have to buy tea, and pay taxes on that tea, does not mean we should buy tea. What we could do is boycott the mainstream media for a new platform that would promise no privacy invasion, let creators sell content under Creative Commons in some way (I.E. subscription), and petition the government with how many users the platform has. This would make the government see that content creators are protect without copyright and without privacy invasive services. If it’s a trade secret, then someone will learn it eventually, and by that point it is a fair span of time that makes the idea makers want to create more original ideas, because they feel the shortage of resources equally to society which is a concept that repeatedly shows up in functioning microeconomics, at least in non-monopolies. The problem is, Disney can waste money and not feel any impact by it; this is characteristic of all monopolies. We should not want a monopoly because of this waste. In a competitive environment, it’s a race to the next concept. Copyright and piracy is also very similar to communism and capitalism, because copyright will try to redistribute ideas and lock them up, where as piracy has a free flow of ideas. Do I think selling the exact same version of a movie in illegal counterfeiting? No, but to simply say that raw information is illegal with a holding within its copyright is wrong. There is a difference in counterfeiting, and pirating; thus, piracy should be looked at differently and separate from counterfeiting. Is the piracy plagiarism? If not, it is not wrong because it encourages better content. This will always be true because you can test this idea within a controlled environment. Make a functioning micro society that has a copyright law, then compare it to a same sized society with no copyright laws. What you will find is that it only benefits the society as a whole to have no copyright. The 2 reasons why copyright will only get worse in the USA, is because no one is protesting through methods that hurt the government, and everyone is switching to streaming services where a real life “1984” could take place. This is not a game to the people trying to make a living and are basically being robbed every single day. This is not a game for the people who wish to control what we see. This is not a game, this is happening now, this is real life.

  7. The reason it is equated with piracy is not the claim that you are depriving them of anything. Their stance is you should have to pay them for it if you want access to it. Their belief is if you download a movie, for example, you are depriving them of the money you would have had to spend in order to see it.

    But that being said, copyright and patents etc were only ever supposed to last a little while, so that huge investments of time, money and creativity could be made profitable, and so people would go to the effort. But it was never to allow them to suck money out of that idea for all eternity, or have sole ownership of it forever. It has been enormously abused in our capitalist world. Then again, what hasn't.

  8. You've certainly made me rethink my position on copyright a bit, though having everything be public domain as standard does actually encourage monopolys due to bigger companies being able to quickly reproduce indie works as their own under cutting them with massive marketing campaigns before the indie product gains initial exposure, though with the internet age that issue may have gone away with information flow speeding up faster than people can work.

    Regardless of circumstance of time period though i fully agree a copyright shouldn't continue past death, who the fuck needs money when they're fucking dead?
    I'd say the 20 years patent time (hell I'd personally say 5 years, can't profit in that time your product is just a failure) would be more reasonable, people should be able to take inspiration from things within their life times, and with such a short time frame it could actually allow creation of fan interpretations within the final years of the works protection.

    The only reason copyrights were deemed necessary was because of how much harder it is to protect, anyone with a printer can sell that work so it's given a window for it to be able to profit.

    After someone's death is fucking retarded, media doesn't even stay on market for that long, why is it protected when the profits go to charity shops and second hand sellers?

  9. 1:00 well… that’s hardly the majority of what he does… besides a good reactor can make actually decent content.

  10. There is no way to create anything without taking influences from others people works. Remixing, taking someone ideas and building your work on it is absolutely fine. I do it all the time as an art student. What is not right is profit off someone else's work without permission.

  11. Okay, but what if some large company sees your work, copies it entirely, publishes it before you can and takes all credit for it? Without copyright, you would have no way to show that you were its original creator. The company might be forever hailed as the original creator of the work, with your name lost to time.

  12. "copy" right is stupid because making a copy shouldnt be illegal. But uploading should be unauthorized. However here is a scenario without this. You invest millions into producing an awesome movie. You sell it. Some jackass buys it and then rips it and shares it with the world. Some people still want to buy it but some other jackass is producing blurays for a lower price. You are now out a lot of money and nothing new gets produced.

  13. I definately agree with some of your points. I do wonder how an author (not the publisher) of a book/song/movie whatever can make a living of their product. Giving (some of) your product(s) away for free can indeed be used to promote your work, but in the end you need to be able to exclusively sell something to earn a living. Perhaps that is something we need to change in the way authors (content creators or however you want to call it) can generate income off their labor.
    I personally am a fan of systems where we cut out most of the publishers and such and the author has more control over their work, and can sell it directly to their target audience. That allows them to drop their prices (sometimes by more than 50%) while earning a little more. But even that system only works if the author has some exclusivity over their creation(s).

  14. A better copyright system already exists. Its called plagiarism laws. This makes sure that any copied work is publicly traceable to the original creator, whether through direct reference or through reference to modified work.

    Of course if copyright law was abolished programming only jobs would be shifted to jobs with programming as a secondary skill. Since the nature of code is continual improvement, most places where programming is needed would only need to take existing work and adjust it to thier needs.

  15. While i love most of your videos and agree, I think you miss the mark here. There are certain products borne of intellectual pursuit that should be protected. Some examples include highly technical software such as MATLAB, Solidworks and the like, even extending to Windows.
    Making products like that outside of an opensource environment would make no commercial sense at all and to protect intellectual property without some semblance of copyright laws would lead to an arms race between reverse engineers and DRM software developers even more than currently the case.

  16. What about stealing through quantum computing? By scanning their qubits, you change them, thus you do change their original work! 😛

  17. Ok so let's say I write a book. And some larger company decides to take my written word and publish it as their own, while using greater resources for marketing and thus drowning out my original publication. There is no way I can see to not call this theft.

  18. sorry dude but patents dont prevent you from recreating something for personal use. and neither did copyrights originally before the whole Napster court ruling fiasco… your opening argument is bunk. copyright law is in a state of crisis right now, but ideally it does not hamper an individuals property rights… only their ability to monetize the IP of others

  19. mhmhm THANOS SEXY NICEEEEEEEE

    nobody:
    white girls/boys: BuuuTt eVeRyoNe DoEs ThAt.0.9du90wum8wymfw89yeq09h8h

    But anyway, great vid helped me understand copyright a lot.

  20. You say no damage is done when copyright is infringed, this is not true; what happens is the original inventor is losing their time and effort they invested in the invention. This video is misleading.

  21. Firstly, I will admit that I pirate things. But I do have to disagree with your statement that (online) piracy doesn't deprive the creators of anything. Technically speaking, it does deprive them of a tiny amount of income. Now if we're talking a massive software developer (like Microsoft) or a massive music/movie studio, your "deprival" of a few sheckles isn't going to hurt them in the slightest (heh, that's what I tell myself anyways). But it is technically depriving them of something. Not nearly as severe as physical piracy, where a bunch of Somalis board your ship and forcefully take control of it. But still, I do see where the "anti-internet-pirates" are coming from.

    …that being said, I don't plan on changing my ways anytime soon lol

  22. I think you take the word copy literal when copy right is more of some using some ones work for profit. Many abuse this sadly so I still see your point but the beging standpoint doesn't make sense.

  23. This whole video is fundamentally flawed by falling for logical fallacies on so many levels, so I just point some of those due to lack of time and will:

    1. Removing copyrights would not sparkle more innovation because if everyone could copy your products and invention for free, you would hardly achieve the return on your investment in research or creative work, thus people would seek other forms of self-sustaining work instead, slowing down progress as a result, profit is the major motivator behind inventions… Exclusion of copyrights or patent ownership for civilian made invention and instead giving it for free or into ownership of the state was tried in the Soviet Union and it was an economic disaster, together with the fact that inventors or research personnel did not really live that much better than coal mine worker, equality is really bad motivator for those doing much more for society than average Joe.

    2. Statement about artists really not caring about copyrights anywhere as much as big companies is in many cases true, big companies are the ones financing big movies, etc. and taking risk on investment which would not return if anyone can just watch their newest movie uploaded on youtube for free by someone with intention to get money from ads from someone else hard and expensive to produce work, which is really ridiculous future proposed with straight face in your video that was not uploaded on 1. April. Without big companies, there will be no big projects because the single individual artist or group of them would be hardly capable finance something like Lord of the Rings trilogy from their own pocket or get a loan from the bank with enough of people with a brain due to risks involved, crowdfunding several hundred million dollar movie trilogy seems pretty unlikely today too…

    3. Pretending that copyrights restricting your freedom because you then cannot produce something that was already patented or copyrighted is plain false, you can produce exactly the same thing in your home (outside of firearms and other restricted stuff), you just cannot sell it to anyone for profit (and yes, youtube videos are too often made for profit from ads or through Patreon & donations, although you still have Fair Use law for limited cases), apart for the fact that just by coincidence producing exactly same tech most often happening in countries which lack industrial base to succeed on the market with their own products and this doing serious harm to developed economies in the process by offering cheaper even when often less quality derivates of the originals which they copied as average customer often cannot distinguish or even need premium quality. This is hardly helping the progress by any means. Patents aren't there to restrict your freedom, but to prevent everyone else to make a profit on your hard mental work that resulted in innovative products that people actually want, so in fact it gives you more freedom by allowing you to make otherwise unprofitable endeavor like inventing time worthy effort, giving you more choices on how to sustain yourself and your family.

  24. Wow, I've never found someone who could articulate this idea as well as me. Great video.
    No… great content. You can tell your deeper philosophical worldview is thought out.
    It really comes through, keep up the great work man.
    I'll tell you what though, you're not going to get far on this platform… You should look at FloatPlane.
    Linus Media Group is a serious media corporation on YouTube run by a sociopath with a Napoleon complex.
    He squeezes every cent out of the deals he makes and didn't enjoy his relationship with YouTube.
    So he fired his right hand man to start a new company and develop a platform where content creators get fully paid.
    They're amateurs, so it's risky and I'm sure they have found a way to profit off the business model, but it's something.
    Otherwise, I would look into Patreon to grow your channel. The content is there, you just need more production.

  25. If you make for example a revolutionary solar panel who produces more electricity at cheaper cost and someone “steel your technology “
    And keep you out of your own business because he didn’t have to spent in R&D you will wish that government enforce and enable copyright law.
    In the long run ,this situation will dissuade every one to creates things , restraining innovation because the mainly incentive to a creator is to generate profit.

    The real problem in my opinion is the extent of the patents and the definition of innovation

  26. Whom steals the fire feels the wrath of gods. A hero tortured for a victimless crime who can't ungive his gift to mankind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *