It did happen quite often in the past. See much of the research done over the last hundred or so years in public universities.
I didn't say we should arbitrarily limit the amount of profit one can make by investing capital, but the current copyright law and patent law is very stifling to innovation.
Apple employs some people, sure. Monopolies (not implying apple is a monopoly to be hit by anti-trust laws, btw, but copyright and patent are monopoly powers) are very, very profitable for the few people that hold them.
I don't have my copy of Wealth of Nations in front of me (out of copyright, but I purchased the penguin classics paperback anyways, go figure), but Adam Smith made a very compelling argument that things like entertainment are not acretive to the capital of a country. At the time of publication (1776), Smith noted actors and musicians expected no more compensation than what they received for peformances. They produced no lasting product that could be added to the 'capital' of the company. Recordings you might say add this value because of copyright, but if you cannot sell your copy that would mean it's not a capital good.
So, yes, creative works existed before the current distribution model.
I'm not arguing people cannot profit from their works, far be it. I'm arguing that the current model for profit favors a very few at the expense of very many, and does not meet the needs of either creators or consumers as well as it does the distributors!
Movies are perhaps the most dependent on the current model, as yes, it takes significant capital to make most movies. However, is it truly more creative to see the 3D version of Star Wars Episode I? Or would it be better to see "Star Wars Episode I: As written By Kickstarter Member XYZ". I'm fairly certain Option B would be more creative at this point. Lucas and everyone involved with Star Wars has already made plenty of money, but you can't expand on those works just because you have a great idea, you'd need Lucas' permission.
Anyways, copyright/patents are a very complex thing right now. I can't tell you exactly how the Ipad came to be (although it wasn't the first tablet), so I can't really say if Apple had the best idea, or just the right polish at the right time. All the patent infringement lawsuits surrounding the ipad seem to support my view that they stifle innovation more than they support the "It required this closed model" argument, if you ask me. Apple is almost assuredly infringing a lot of patents (which many may be invalid), and I would argue they are really so successful because they have deep enough pockets to fight all those legal wars.
I could write a lot and end up saying very little, it is very hard for me to boil down all my thoughts on copyright and patents into a HN comment.
I didn't say we should arbitrarily limit the amount of profit one can make by investing capital, but the current copyright law and patent law is very stifling to innovation.
Apple employs some people, sure. Monopolies (not implying apple is a monopoly to be hit by anti-trust laws, btw, but copyright and patent are monopoly powers) are very, very profitable for the few people that hold them.
I don't have my copy of Wealth of Nations in front of me (out of copyright, but I purchased the penguin classics paperback anyways, go figure), but Adam Smith made a very compelling argument that things like entertainment are not acretive to the capital of a country. At the time of publication (1776), Smith noted actors and musicians expected no more compensation than what they received for peformances. They produced no lasting product that could be added to the 'capital' of the company. Recordings you might say add this value because of copyright, but if you cannot sell your copy that would mean it's not a capital good.
So, yes, creative works existed before the current distribution model.
I'm not arguing people cannot profit from their works, far be it. I'm arguing that the current model for profit favors a very few at the expense of very many, and does not meet the needs of either creators or consumers as well as it does the distributors!
Movies are perhaps the most dependent on the current model, as yes, it takes significant capital to make most movies. However, is it truly more creative to see the 3D version of Star Wars Episode I? Or would it be better to see "Star Wars Episode I: As written By Kickstarter Member XYZ". I'm fairly certain Option B would be more creative at this point. Lucas and everyone involved with Star Wars has already made plenty of money, but you can't expand on those works just because you have a great idea, you'd need Lucas' permission.
Anyways, copyright/patents are a very complex thing right now. I can't tell you exactly how the Ipad came to be (although it wasn't the first tablet), so I can't really say if Apple had the best idea, or just the right polish at the right time. All the patent infringement lawsuits surrounding the ipad seem to support my view that they stifle innovation more than they support the "It required this closed model" argument, if you ask me. Apple is almost assuredly infringing a lot of patents (which many may be invalid), and I would argue they are really so successful because they have deep enough pockets to fight all those legal wars.
I could write a lot and end up saying very little, it is very hard for me to boil down all my thoughts on copyright and patents into a HN comment.