This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What alternatives are there, beside IP/copyright laws, to support the creative process?
I have been asked to put forward some alternataives to IP/copyright/royalty as methods to ensure on--going creativity for the sake of humanity.
The question "What is creativity" is a complex subject in itself. Here I wish to examine the conditions required for "creativity" to be undertaken and how to contrive those conditions in a balanced manner.
We will assume that the purpose of creativity has a net advantage for the human species.
This advantage can form a frame for the discussion and help identify systems that satisfy this goal.
Firstly, I'd like to offer patronage as the starting model.
The practice of patronage in history was a primary means by which specialist creatives were afforded the time to spare from primary survival activities (food shelter etc) in which to advance their contribution.
The practice was primarily undertaken by those with sufficient surplus - the wealthy. However, there is a recognised dynamic by which greater wealth induces less generosity, and the patronage becomes a self serving investment.
I will bring to attention the practice of busking. A busker conducts a performance that all can enjoy. Only those with generosity will toss a coin - this is an act of direct support with no regard for whoever else is gaining the benefit of the performance - and not donating.
It is a very different paradigm to the concert concept or the investment concept.
It might provide a basis for a system that satisfies the objective.
Happy to explore the dynamics of this model and how to extrapolate it into wider domains.
Also happy to investigate other alternatives.
What are your thoughts?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
it is always the same. some interest group convinces us that their interest is our interest. millers convince us that they need some extra cash or protection, because it is in our common interest that millers do well. this is of course nonsense. milling won't stop as long as we want flour. this is nothing but misdirection and predation. insidious and very harmful predation.
At Houston, Texas
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what i can say though, is that i never said laws do not affect innovation. i said we should not affect them. certainly if we allow millers to form a cartel, they will make more money. but it helps nobody but them. for me, the effect is more expensive flour.
i claimed that if you take into account not only the short term, and not only the effect for some group in focus, but the long term and the everyone, such actions turn out to be harmful and disruptive to the natural order people would develop themselves.
recommended reading is henry hazlitt's economics in one lesson.
At Houston, Texas
I would add that anything people develop is part of the "natural order people would develop themselves," even if it's shortsighted. Like I said below, I can't think of a way to outlaw limited knowledge, which is what leads to shortsighted policy. We just have to keep learning and sharing that knowledge.
David Hamilton 50+
This is why, for example, in the United States, it is an absolute fact, that ending oil subsidies, would be much more effective at growing the green energy economy, than any targeted subsidy for solar or wind power could be. People fighting for wind and solar subsidies, simply are unaware, or refuse to accept the reality that subsidies caused the problem in the green energy market... They won't fix it.
At Houston, Texas
Mitch SMith 50+
Good points - I like your insight..
As a fellow old-timer (pre-java) computer guy, consider a slightly more complex dynamic: that in the domain of "creativity", it is rarely the creative person who forms the cartel - it is the third party and middleman who does this.
If you add this dynamic to the model - what are your insights?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
in this imaginary world, implementors and combinators will be in good position. also people who can come up with many ideas. people won't try to hit the jackpot with one idea-bomb, and then retire. the focus would be on the application. it has far reaching consequences, good and bad. impossible to foresee exactly what would happen.
Mitch SMith 50+
But then, we are in an age where risk is seen as a demon. The result of which is not risk reduction, but risk displacement or deferal.
The consequences are upon us no matter what we do. If one argues that it's "natural selction" if all the risk happens to fall on you - and those who avoided it will be selected, you forget that the process of deferal/displacement will ultimately find its way to the top of the tree - from which no deferal or diplacement is possible - because there is only one individual left standing - who inherits the lot. Such is the nature of closed systems.
My insight is that systems need not be closed.