> Because Apple paid to produce that knowledge? It's good that people can spend a lot of time and money developing new knowledge and then for some period of time they get to exclusively reap the rewards of doing so.
Ideal scenario? Meta decides it's not worth operating in my country, geoblocks us, and pulls their apps from the app stores.
I'm sympathetic to the people who get real value from meta platforms, but on balance, I see meta as a massively negative force, and their business model and leadership make it effectively un-fixable.
The upside of well-crafted social media bans for kids under a certain age is that you can use them to apply financial pain to social media companies for failing to prevent kids from signing up.
Well, I'm not American, and the regulatory capture that you describe, and America's efforts to impose it on the world in order to benefit American corporations is detrimental to society at large.
But even if copyright takes a long time to expire, there's still a pile of culturally significant stuff coming into public domain every year. e.g. it's good that the works of Arthur Conan Doyle are now in the public domain.
May work better in some countries than others; e.g. checking the book I'm currently reading that's published by Hachette, my local indie book store sells it for the same price as amazon.ca, (and I can easily order online, there's no need to "explain to a shop owner what I want") but Hachette doesn't seem to have any B2C online front that I'm able to order from.
Yeah, I'm sure it does - libraries buy licenses to a specific number of books that can be lent out. I've got no insight into how the licenses my library has stack up against other libraries though.
> For the same reasons and in the same way, those ideas — that intellectual property — belong to the company.
No, it's for fundamentally different reasons.
Physical property rights exist to protect people.
IP rights exist to benefit society other than the IP rights holders - either by a) incentivizing inventions (patents, that expire) or b) incentivizing creative works (copyright, that expire) or c) trademarks (that explicitly exist to prevent consumer confusion).
"Processes" and "techniques" that aren't patentable don't "belong" to a company with a factory in any legal or moral sense, and if they are patentable, they only belong to the company for the defined term of the patent, after which they belong to the public via public domain.
I find that integration near-useless. Even obscure books (if available) tend to have a multi-month wait at my library. Since the wait times seem to be semi-random, it's basically impossible to queue up books in a way that syncs up to my pace of reading.
(I guess if I really wanted to, at my rough reading pace of one book per week, I could place a hold on two books per week, and on average every week I'd get two books available, pick one to read, and just cycle the other back into the hold queue.)
You could have strong property rights for physical goods while simultaneously having no intellectual property rights - there's nothing that makes the latter instrinsically follow from the former.
I generally agree, but it seems darkly comical to be worried about gatekeeping antibiotics as a tick disease prophylactic when the vast majority of antibiotics are applied non-therapeutically to farm animals.
Networking isn’t my strong point, but my impression is that if you do this (e.g. with a Pi-hole) there isn’t a way to gracefully failover all your in-home devices to the second hop when your Pi-hole is down. In practice this means that to avoid introducing an extra point of failure you can only really do this with an appropriate router, which pigeonholes your router selection if your preferred router isn’t one that already supported this.
That’s not historically uncommon though. Like the house I grew up in was a rural house built in ~1890 by the brothers who farmed the land. Of course it had the usual quirks of an old house, but it was well maintained over time and I wouldn’t view it as any kind of “monstrosity”.
You’re describing patents?