[knight17]

Why don't we see more powerful tools for thoughts?

>> Put another way, many tools for thought are public goods. They often cost a lot to develop initially, but it’s easy for others to duplicate and improve on them, free riding on the initial investment. While such duplication and improvement is good for our society as a whole, it’s bad for the companies that make that initial investment. And so such tools for thought suffer the fate of many public goods: our society collectively underinvests in them, relative to the benefits they provide.

[mikewarot]

Thoughts themselves used to be public goods, but thanks to aggressive copyright laws and customs, even the most basic implementation of Bush's Memex from 1945 is illegal to use.

We're no longer free to copy and improve the thoughts of others by law, custom or practice, except for some limited areas like HN.

In this environment, the tools can't be built that we most desperately need

[nl]

> Thoughts themselves used to be public goods, but thanks to aggressive copyright laws and customs, even the most basic implementation of Bush's Memex from 1945 is illegal to use.

I don't believe this is true at all.

[mikewarot]

How so?

[nl]

I think the claim that there are any restrictions on memex is somewhat unusual and is the thing that requires explaination!

Bush's Memex was explained in an essay[1]. There's no intellectual property restrictions around any of the ideas there, and some of the explanations were so rooted in the technology of the day that the idea of restrictions on them doesn't make any sense:

> Most of the memex contents are purchased on microfilm ready for insertion. Books of all sorts, pictures, current periodicals, newspapers, are thus obtained and dropped into place. Business correspondence takes the same path. And there is provision for direct entry. On the top of the memex is a transparent platen. On this are placed longhand notes, photographs, memoranda, all sorts of things. When one is in place, the depression of a lever causes it to be photographed onto the next blank space in a section of the memex film, dry photography being employed.

Even putting aside the microfilm technology, most (all?) of the concepts described in the essay seem freely available.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-m...

[mikewarot]

I'm not saying the technology would be prohibited... I'm saying that making copies of copyrighted works would be prohibited... which is the main way that a memex was meant to work.

Record companies freaked out when people started using Napster, a Memex for music. I'm sure the same would happen if I were to download an article from the New York Times, for example... and repost it with a copy of my notes added.

The copying of material is the thing that is just a no-go these days.

[Terretta]

> tools for thoughts

Given his dedication to the concept through decades, arguably iPad — together with apps for it like LiquidText[1] — embodies Job’s “bicycle for the mind”.

1. https://www.liquidtext.net/

Speaking of, not just for iPad, and with emphasis on “tool”, Obsidian[2] is emerging as a remarkable tool for thoughts.

2. https://obsidian.md/

One key to popularity seems to be the plugin ecosystem which ratchets up a swiss army knife aspect of tool, suggesting its macro power may be any number of “scratches exactly that itch” micro tools for thought.

While other tools are more extensible or easier to use, this one pulled the plugin ecosystem into first class citizen status very early, with browser and manager built in. This let the “public” not just ride, but contribute early and often, cementing investment.