Hacker News Reader

As a general rule we don't enforce copyright at the point of having an idea, but rather at the point of putting that idea into some sort of medium that can be transmitted to others, and then we enforce copyright at the transmission point. The transmission has concrete, albeit somewhat mutable scarcity.

View on HN

The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. And that balance is off, IP regulation has become a tool for rent seeking.

>The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society.

I will just note that characterization is a very American one, and that different cultures have different characterizations.

You are actually incorrect here as far as the US goes.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

The whole constitutional purpose of IP law is to spur creative activity. The interests of the creator are only a means to this end. This has, unfortunately, been perverted by regulatory capture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com