"Or those companies that would set up 1000 TV antennas in a datacenter and then stream"
I believe Aereo tried just that and failed - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386...
I believe Aereo tried just that and failed - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/25/325488386...
The Supreme Court ruling is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf
They had a product that involved giving away other people's stuff. Yes, copyright terms are too long. But I'm pretty sure that a vanishingly small amount of that stuff they were giving away would be out of copyright even with a copyright term of 20 years.
If Aereo was in the wrong than the cable industry probably should never have existed.
Intellectual property restrictions raise costs and keep people poor. 3D printers were $50,000+ until the patents expired, and now you can get a decent printer for $300. And books of course could be distributed for free. Every person on earth could be born in to great wealth if we simply allowed it.
Of course I do not advocate that we take income from hard working artists. Instead I advocate for a world where we make living so cheap that artists need little in the way of income for survival. Reducing intellectual property restrictions is one important factor in lowering the cost of living for all, and would make it easier for billions to benefit from the technologies people like me in the USA enjoy.
Supporting copyright means supporting the idea that we do not build a comprehensive library of all books accessible to all people. In contrast to the idea that every child born on earth should have access to a complete library of the written word, intellectual property advocates push for the impoverishment of the billions on earth who cannot pay tithing to book publishers and movie studios. It's quite the bold position to take.
May your works act as a seed to a tree whose shade you may one day enjoy.
Your suggestion that we outlaw business is clearly meant to be inflammatory, but it's unnecessary. Businesses like Prusa seem to be just fine without using IP restrictions.
> Why would a dr want to work on a solution for cancer instead of just treating people if the value gain is the same?
I would put it to you that you've misunderstood why people do things that they do. I am making a 3D printable off road robot and associated computer vision stack completely open source because I want to. It feels good to make something I think others will benefit from. I am able to cover my material needs with part time work, and I put a huge amount of effort in to my computer vision research so I can help contribute to solving tough robotics problems. The endeavor has cost me thousands of dollars in supplies and truly hundreds of hours of my own time. But it's worth doing.
You mentioned a desire to "protect your work". Well your work is not under attack when someone observes what you've done and reproduces it. Your work is still there, it's fine. But to advocate for IP restrictions is to say that you think I should collaborate with you to stop anyone else from copying your work. And I think that's a bad idea. Closed source technology is a big unchanging black box that stops up the works. We can make the cost of living dramatically cheaper for all people on Earth, but not with thousands of little black boxes everywhere. Imagine a huge open source software project that relies on a bunch of closed source modules. Developing improvements would be a pain. Why should we tolerate the same for the very means of reproduction of our society?
I’m aware what you do on your Github, I looked it up. Interestingly I have many more public/oss repos than you.
You have failed to address the point and gave one example of a company based around 3d printers. I challenge you to think about this across all industries and how a company making something of great value can protect this thing so another company cannot just take it and get all the research for free.
Further I put it to you that YOU don’t understand why people do what they do. Most of us enjoy an intelectual challenge but that is not all we enjoy.
My actual software contributions are smaller, though I did design an arduino compatible frequency hopping wireless networking library and associated open licensed hardware designs, some of which is under my failed company's github account.
My computer vision stack is under development and I don't have much on github at the moment. But the point was not that I am so great for making a bunch of open source contributions. The question (which someone else asked) was whether I would open source my own code. The answer is yes.
I am also the lead engineer on a farming robot, which has lots of software I wrote myself. I am pushing hard for us to become a non profit and release all of our IP with an unrestricted license. So yes to the other commenter's question, I am very willing to follow my words with actions.
I gave you a perfectly fine example of a company that works even in the current climate without needing such restrictions on competition. I believe it would work the same with washing machines and automobiles and farming equipment. Can you tell me why it would work for 3D printers and not washing machines?
Of course huge adjustments would need to be made. But we would find a balance.
You mentioned curing cancer. Why did the inventor of human made insulin sell the rights for $1? Because he wanted all to have access. It is only intellectual property that has made the price so high many are dying in America because of it. Is that the world you would prefer?
So no, I would not be annoyed. Intellectual property restrictions increase the cost of everything and stand in the way of providing a better world for all.