397
Copyright and why it's broken. - Tom Scott
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
397 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
227 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah, patents, finally someone opens the next pandora’s box… 😅
Well, that’s a bit what someone else tried to argue with the idea vs implementation of an idea argument.
But it’s different here, you cannot have a patent on „science“. You cannot patent the theory of relativity or Newton‘s laws of motion.
What you can patent is a product or a process or a technology which uses science, so you can have a patent on some gps technology which uses Einstein‘s work. Nobody gave old Albert a dime for using his theory though (okay he was also already dead).
But how would you like to transfer that to music? Do you want to patent the performance but the composition (the science) can be „quoted“ by anyone? Not sure where you’re going with this.
And btw you are already paying someone to be able to use the colour pink. You cannot patent the colour itself, but you can patent the product and the process. Producing reliable colours is an industry, they’re not for free.
Edit: we also have many, many areas in science where creating a patent based on the results is not the motivation nor expected because in many areas it’s not even a possibility.
The core of my argument is that art is a product, and science is funded through the ability to market it. Ideas aren't patentable but science is not just "ideas". Science doesn't mean anything unless you apply it. Applied Science is implementations that are patentable. It's why concepts like game mechanics are patentable.
Art fundamentally makes money differently than science does. This is why things like scientists freely offer papers describing studies and research while making money off of implementations of that research. In digital art, colors are free. The issue is then the monitors and display of that color change depending on implementation. That implementation isn't free. Color systems in digital art are the like the research side of science where the implementation of it is a copyrighted artwork. The applied art created a product just like the science side. They both work the same.
Yeah, that’s just plain wrong. Science isn’t just engineering, you know. Again, outside of the actual „applied sciences“ (engineering, pharmaceuticals, etc) rarely anyone produces something that can be marketed, and even if so, it’s by chance. Einstein did not develop his theory of relativity to „market it“. Many areas are only producing results to further our understanding of the world, and we as a society pay them to do so.
Yeah, how much did Einstein make when writing the paper on special relativity?
I thought science is funded by the ability to market it, what is it now, make up your mind 🤪
Einstein had a job at a Federal Department. Which is unusual, as a matter of fact (so be free take someone else if you like as an example), because – I don’t know if you have heard about this – usually science happens at something called a university. Which is payed by something called taxes.
And now please go and waste someone else‘s time, clown