You're simply saying "laws should be followed", and my retort is that different laws are different. You aren't really acknowledging that point, or any other points I made in defense of breaking some laws, and so our conversation has reached a standstill.
> (capital markets don't work without copyright and patents except to fund thing like existing businesses such a bakers)
I don't understand this point of view. Take software, for example. Websites have been copying each other's designs for ages, with minimal actual use of copyrights or patents. Almost no startup founder who creates a new web app is counting on defensibility coming from IP law. In fact, quite the opposite, the ethos is that whatever functionality and interfaces you develop will likely be copied by competitors, and that "moats" should come from things like a first-mover advantage, social features, brand loyalty, customer relationships, etc.
I'd say that, for the vast majority of business models that power the economy, it's obvious they could and would continue to exist without IP protection. Consulting, coaching, legal services, design agencies, marketplaces (e.g. eBay and Crisglist), social networks, online forums, SaaS tools, DTC brands, Amazon-like retail sites, food delivery, freight companies, logistic companies, live events, news coverage, platforms (eg. Shopify), restaurants, cafes, apparel companies, gyms, most apps, festivals and shows and live performances, etc. I could go on.
For those business models where it's not obvious, I'd still bet money that they would continue to thrive, and might simply take a different shape or require some creative pivots, rely on trade secrets, etc. Except to prevent bad actors and consumer abuse, the market does not need government simulation to inspire people to do business. And the vast majority of all profit models are discovered by creative individuals, not mandated by unnecessary laws.
IP law is largely just rent seeking created via regulatory capture by incumbents who stand to benefit from it. These incumbents have spent decades trying to convince the public that IP law is necessary for the economy (it isn't) and that it's also morally just because copying and riffing are identical to theft (they aren't).
You're simply saying "laws should be followed", and my retort is that different laws are different. You aren't really acknowledging that point, or any other points I made in defense of breaking some laws, and so our conversation has reached a standstill.
> (capital markets don't work without copyright and patents except to fund thing like existing businesses such a bakers)
I don't understand this point of view. Take software, for example. Websites have been copying each other's designs for ages, with minimal actual use of copyrights or patents. Almost no startup founder who creates a new web app is counting on defensibility coming from IP law. In fact, quite the opposite, the ethos is that whatever functionality and interfaces you develop will likely be copied by competitors, and that "moats" should come from things like a first-mover advantage, social features, brand loyalty, customer relationships, etc.
I'd say that, for the vast majority of business models that power the economy, it's obvious they could and would continue to exist without IP protection. Consulting, coaching, legal services, design agencies, marketplaces (e.g. eBay and Crisglist), social networks, online forums, SaaS tools, DTC brands, Amazon-like retail sites, food delivery, freight companies, logistic companies, live events, news coverage, platforms (eg. Shopify), restaurants, cafes, apparel companies, gyms, most apps, festivals and shows and live performances, etc. I could go on.
For those business models where it's not obvious, I'd still bet money that they would continue to thrive, and might simply take a different shape or require some creative pivots, rely on trade secrets, etc. Except to prevent bad actors and consumer abuse, the market does not need government simulation to inspire people to do business. And the vast majority of all profit models are discovered by creative individuals, not mandated by unnecessary laws.
IP law is largely just rent seeking created via regulatory capture by incumbents who stand to benefit from it. These incumbents have spent decades trying to convince the public that IP law is necessary for the economy (it isn't) and that it's also morally just because copying and riffing are identical to theft (they aren't).