Lol, that's one creepy smile. Have I posted something that sounds like one of his campaign commercials or something?
Have you heard FFFUUUUUUUUU comics? Yeah, a random person decided to draw expression face and post it online. HE didn't know that it'll become popular but it did, eventually. Did anybody know who drew that face? I bet majority of people don't. But, the only man, himself is proud because the community gets to use his art. Would you be proud if the community get to use your art for their satisfaction? Noted: If we took your IP-protection approach then Let's sue CAIN for using troll face! Oh waiiittt....
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...example-truly-free-market-3.html#post12875208 Apples and oranges.
Because this isn't a sustainable business model. I don't make art because it gives me the warm fuzzies. I do it because my family needs to eat and it pays the bills. It wouldn't pay the bills if any freeloader had the right to just take the work I've invested in without paying for it. I can't eat pride.
Oh right, lol. Never seen that before sorry, i'm British. I thought 'apples and oranges' was a common colloquialism. Sorry for the confusion
ahh you're british, that explains it. We Americans assume we are the only people on the internet sometimes...my bad lol
It costs them billions of dollars to get a drug to market in the current paradigm. The company will easily make the money back. They don't have to release their methodology. They can have their employees sign NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). Eventually someone may reverse engineer it and/or someone might leak their recipe/process (violating their NDA), but they will have surely made a sizable profit by then. Everyone can't just synthesize new drugs as soon as they're released regardless of IP laws. Even in your scenario, do you think people who are dying of cancer are going to trust a large pharma company who actually developed and tested the drug or some joe-schmoe in his basement? If your life was on the line, you might go with the more expensive, trustworthy option. Wrong. False premises, even with sound reasoning, can lead to false conclusions. Time to go back and check your premises.
Well, where are you getting this idea that you have exclusive rights to it? When did these rights start? Where did they come from? When do they end? Are you saying that because you put your time and effort into it that you're entitled to it?
It kinda makes me sad that most people, supporting the status quo, say that things could never change, and that society necessarily has to run based on greed and things of that nature.
I invested the time, energy, thought, and money into creating a tangible, original, commercial art that other people are willing to pay for. I pay for the website that hosts my work. I pay to market my work. I pay for my studio. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars in equipment. I invest hours of my time into networking, doing paperwork, working with my clients, and cataloging the tangible files that I create. The real question is what gives YOU the right to all of that?
So because you made it you're entitled to the money someone else has made through their own marketing, production (assuming physical copies are being sold) and distribution?
Once they buy the rights from me, they are welcome to use it for their own marketing, production and/or distribution. At that point, buying the rights becomes an investment in their own business. If someone wants to print my photo, frame it and resell it, my photo is just as much a part of that product as the frame and the paper it's printed on. The paper and frames cost money, why should they get the most important component for free?
I just hope you credit all the people that made it possible for you to take that photograph including the manufacturers of all your equipment.
This doesn't even make sense. I purchase the equipment that I use. Thus, the manufacturers are getting the 'credit' that they ask for. Those are the terms of the sale. That doesn't give me the right to take my Nikon's slap "Penelope" on the label and sell it as my own design.
Do you have any idea how much research costs? Do you have any idea how research works? The current paradigm is not the fundamental issue. It is an issue, and it does contribute to the cost, but to think that you could somehow develop a drug for anything short of millions if not billions demonstrates quite clearly you've never touched foot in a research laboratory. You don't need to release methodology or have someone leak it out. Any graduate student in an organic lab could buy the drug or pill in question the day it comes out and within a week they'll know the structure of the compound, and within a month or two will have the synthesis worked out. 100% guaranteed. As a biochemist, if the drug is a protein of some kind, like an antibody, all I would have to do is sequence the protein (~2 wks of work), order the gene myself (1-2 wks of waiting time), express it in E. coli with a cleavable affinity tag, purify it and POOF...I've got grams of their protein in a couple of months having spent about $1000. To think you can't copy and manufacture a drug in a matter of months is beyond naive. As stated in the above paragraph, yes anyone (with an organic chemistry background) could synthesize the new drug as soon as it is released. Easy peasy cake work for an organic chemist. What difference does it make if joe schmoe developed it in his basement so long as he can provide a simple analysis sheet that shows the compound is as pure as the original manufacturer's? This is all he needs to do. He doesn't need to do any testing of the efficacy of the drug whatsoever! Why? Because the developer already did all that work for joe-schmoe, at the expense of millions of dollars. All Joe has to do is cite their work. That's the beauty of Joe Schoe's operation. Pennies of investment with a simple citation covering billions of dollars of research not done by him demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that "his" product is perfect safe. Free market FTW, right? And no, you're not going to go with the more expensive version when you don't have the money to pay for it. No, your premises are completely naive in nature. Copying a drug is as easy as copying an mp3 file these days. Given that FACT, would you ever invest millions of your own money to develop a product that, the second you release said product, will be copied and sold for fractions of a penny by your competitor? Of course not. Huge investment + no profit = no incentive.
Well, if time, energy, thought and money are what endow someone with rights what about the people who were involved with your work after you say it was stolen? They invest time, energy, thought and money to the programs they use to scrape the web. You said in an earlier post use your work to make money and feed your family, so do they. Those resources they spend on themselves are also spent on your work. If spending time, energy, thought and money is what gives someone a right to something, then they must share in some right to your work as well. Obviously, they're finding a way to make money off of your work that you haven't. Should other people not be allowed to improve on other peoples ideas just because the inventor didn't do it first?