[bduerst]

This is survivor bias.

Investment into information property (IP) goes unseen because you only ever publicly see what happens after the success. Without a legally guaranteed return on investment on IP, investment into developing it would be stunted.

Now is usually when someone counters with open-sourced initiatives, but they themselves still have copyrights legally protecting how they are used after being developed.

[postingposts]

Ok but that’s assuming I have empathy for investors; I do not.

[PeterisP]

You don't need to have empathy for investors, you simply need to acknowledge that if the investors won't have the financial motivation to invest in something, they won't; so anything that needs investment to be created won't get created.

[bduerst]

Right, and your lack of empathy is likely due to survivor bias, having never seen or put significant resources into developing IP yourself.

That's the world we all live in, you alone are not entitled to be the only rational, self-interested person.

[postingposts]

Well, I have developed IP myself. Emphasis on myself. Half the time dragging along people down a path they can’t see. I’m not sympathetic or empathetic to anyone doing the same because in generally they’re doing so from a perspective of having more resources.

In other words: dude I have done things for rich people like crazy rich people, and they’re babies who can’t do for themselves and got money through generational wealth or wealthy relatives or knowing wealthy people. I have done for myself with less than most get and my lack of empathy comes directly from people who are allowed to fail in luxury.

[bduerst]

So because a couple people you worked happened to be wealthy and you didn't like them, we should throw out protecting IP with copyright law everywhere?