[kingsuper20]

Given the provenance of most (all?) of the material on Sci-Hub, the copyright issues here seem laughable to me.

Fruitless speculation about the FBI aside, you do have to wonder about the future of IP generally in the world. There's a sort of evolutionary pressure going on right now between different countries' approach to the matter and I can't say that the US-style rules will hold (or more realistically, be imposed).

[jMyles]

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

[mnd999]

The original purpose of copyright was to encourage people to create works. The theory being that of others can simply copy something where is the incentive to do it at all.

IMHO, there’s something in that for some classes of works, so I don’t think no-IP is a good idea universally. It’s certainly questionably for scientific papers though.

[eikenberry]

Copyright was done primarily to make money for distributors with the secondary effect being that they can then afford to pay the creators. The copyright compromise was that we would give up our right to copy in order to enable copies, that cost money to make and move, to be available. Take away the cost of copying and distributing and the primary reason for copyright disappears.

That leaves the secondary function of encouraging creation. But turns out creation is not 'original' as people thought and having others works freely available encourages new works much more than promises of monetary gains.

[jMyles]

I think it's very possible that this approach was historically important for promoting creativity, but I think it's more likely, on balance, to have the opposite effect as the internet matures.

[danuker]

Especially ones funded by public money.

[croes]

You mean initial claim, the purpose was always money.

[fabianhjr]

WTO and Trade/Economic Warfare. For example: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/United_States_embargo_against_Cu...

[SirSourdough]

I mean, that’s pretty much China’s position with regards to other countries IP as I understand it. There’s just a lot of power still held by the nations that do support a US-style approach to IP, so many countries have incentive not to ignore IP laws.

[TeMPOraL]

IIRC, even they have been forced to increase enforcement of western IP rights over the last decade, because US has been pressuring them to (back before Trump and the whole trade war thing).

This is a generally applicable answer: IP rights hold power worldwide mostly because the no.1 country that wants them has military and economic dominance over most of the planet.

[arp242]

Chinese companies file a huge amount of patents at the US patent office; 20 years ago, when they didn't have many of their own patents, it didn't make much sense to enforce foreign patents in their own country. But now that China has its own large patent portfolio abroad, it makes a lot more sense to cooperate so they can enforce these patents, too.

[rozab]

Here's my naive take: Tax havens, flags of convenience, etc. are allowed to exist by the international community because they benefit the powerful. A jurisdiction doing this would likely benefit the weak, rather than the powerful.

China have managed it to an extent only because they have the economic clout to resist international pressure.

[rusk]

Trade agreements. You can play ball by whatever rules you like, but in order for it to be meaningful you’ll have to get people to play with you.

[periheli0n]

IP was created to incentivize innovation and publication thereof. No point in publicising innovation when everyone can just go copy it. Some innovations will be kept secret forever, some will never happen.

[Shorel]

I think China secretly believes this.

[layoutIfNeeded]

Have you heard about a country called “China”?

[refurb]

Go to most undeveloped countries and see how well having no IP works.