Is it good that copyrighted ideas are slowly becoming a thing of the past due to the internet revolution?

Answer 1

I don't think copyrighted ideas are becoming a thing of the past. What is happening, though, is that many of the ideas that might never have been shared beyond a small group of friends are now able to be shared with millions, instantly. So, the number of copyrighted ideas is not shrinking, but the number of non-copyrighted ideas being shared is growing. I think this is a wonderful thing. If someone has something copyrightable, s/he can still get a copyright - or choose to forego the potential financial gain by posting it on the web for all to see.

The only real problem I see is that the ease of putting anything on the web leads to a great deal of unreliable material. Even so, one should question anything one reads, whether online or in print. The vetting process is more arduous for a print work, but it does not ensure accuracy. The web provides more apocryphal and inaccurate information, but at least it does so openly.

Answer 2

There is no such thing as a copyrighted idea and there never has been.

What copyrights protect is a piece of work. You may write as many books about adolescent wizards destined to defeat ultrapowerful evils as you like... what you may not do is take all or part of someone else's book about that and pretend it is your own. The Internet has not changed this one iota. Such people still garner no respect and are now probably MORE easily exposed than ever.

What the Internet HAS facilitated is the theft of complete works as a whole. This is a mixed bag. After all, few people try to steal the work of someone who is unknown - they want popular, moneyed works that are otherwise expensive. It could therefore be argued that this kind of activity isn't likely to ruin anyone, except the middle-men who were already gorging on the work of others (authors and musicians typically receive less than 10% of the ultimate sale price of their work... the other 90% of the money goes to other people).

Further, I think most true artists really do want their work distributed to as many people as possible. I can think of a many artists who have overtly GIVEN whole works away. Many more have recently tried to make it as easy as possible for audiences to circumvent the traditional publishing process and access their work directly (which also has the side effect of giving the artist nearly 100% of the profit). This can be a good thing too, certainly.

But there's also a big potential for negatives. Producers of good work will probably always find ways to make some money. But there's a big leap between some money and lots and lots (in many cases it's the difference between keeping a 'day job' and spending all your time doing fantastic work that only you can do). Publishers also actually spend a lot of time, effort, and resources trying to find the 'next big thing'. It is reasonable to believe that if publishers cannot profit from this, they will stop trying and there may be many 'big thing's that are simply never found.

If that should happen, it would make us ALL poorer. Maybe not monetarily, but poorer in much more significant ways.

Answer 3

you have the prospect to throw out the government each and every 4 years, yet maximum folk shop vote casting an identical human beings lower back into workplace. What make you think of issues could be extra appropriate after a revolution?

Answer 4

Not at all. It will bring an end to innovation.

Answer 5

define good in this context