|
|
|
|
|
|
by bruce511
1476 days ago
|
|
|
"Intellectual Property" as a term covers more than monetization though. For example it covers Trade Marks which has more to do with ownership (ie a "brand") than with direct monetization. I don't sell my trademark. The distinction is important because one can be pro, or against, monetization - for or against ownership, pro or against copyright and so on. Incidentally copyright isn't as much about monetization (almost no creative works make any money) - it's more about control over the creation. >> I read the phrase "promote creativity" as indistinguishable from "promote innovation in the non-STEM (artistic, literary, etc.) fields" I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that there's a big difference between innovation and creativity, and conflating the two does not necessarily lead to progress in reforming either. |
|
|
Interesting example, but it is still all about monetization, even if slightly indirect. E.g., every franchise operation licenses it's trademark to it's operators - You and I can setup a hamburger restaurant, but we'd better not call it McDonald's or Wendy's without signing up to their franchise agreement and paying the fees.
I've worked in both software and now in mechanical engineering fields, and I'm also having a hard time seeing both how innovation is not merely creativity applied to one field and the arts are creativity applied to another. Whether I'm creating a new widget, or way to make the widget, or you are creating a new painting, song, or written work, we're both applying our training, knowledge, experience, and creativity to create something new.
Even more so, I don't see how making this distinction inhibits making reforms.
In both cases, we need to reform the system so that it is not merely a tool for corporations to implement restrictive rent-seeking regimes to extract profit and inhibit progress. Any further detail you can provide?