Zolgar: Let me ask you. Are you paid by the hour, or does your company not pay you until they make the money off the drugs you work on? I'm guessing you're an hourly schmuck, just like me. I do manufacturing for a small business, and sometimes design new products, but regardless I am paid by the hour.
I'm not hourly, but I am salaried. I'm also granted stock options and restricted stock units as compensation (options are currently underwater, but my RSUs currently have an equity of around $14,000), so I do have a stake in how my company performs. Additionally, as part of the contract for my employment I'm required to sign over the rights to any invention I am a contributor to. Currently I'm listed as the inventor on one patent current under review, and will likely be an inventor on two or three more with the year. This also contributes to my ability to gain future employment as a key part of my resume. My primary financial stake in the matter, though, is that my continued employment is dependent upon my company and other companies in the industry being able to leverage the patents they hold to make money off of the drugs created. Personally I'd consider that a pretty major stake in the system, but you're free to form your own opinion on the matter.
On the subject of other creative works I'm also an author on four academic papers from my time in undergrad and grad school. Don't even get me started on the clusterfuck that is peer-reviewed academic journals, a system which is fairly harmful to academic research and which is enabled by the obscenely long copyrights we currently have.
Zolgar: You are arguing with a 25 year old blue-collar worker. Not an artist. Not someone who makes a living off their art. I have no copyrighted art to sell. So there is no childish "give me my money." mentality, anymore than you have a "Give me anything more than 10 years old for free." mentality.
If I recall correctly you mentioned in an earlier post that you hope to one day be producing creative works and be able to profit off of holding copyrights. Or is my memory just mixing (or making) things up? Regardless, it makes little difference whether the opinion is expressed as "I should be payed" or "they should be payed", as it's the general view I've been arguing against, not highly specific personal beliefs. As for the fact that you've taken my view that after ten years ideas and information should be returned to their default market state without any special artificial protections to mean nothing more than "I want free stuff"... well, I feel a bit sorry for you that you weren't able to get anything more worthwhile out of this discussion.
Zolgar: I believe in the ownership of intellectual property. You, don't. That's pretty much the end of it. How you treat me for having a different view than you, is a show of your maturity.
Well, during this whole discussion I've been aiming to clarify just what I consider the status of "intellectual property" to be, as well as prompting you to justify what you consider "ownership" of IP, which is to say justify why the government should control what other people can do with ideas and information they are in possession of. However, if you have no wish to actually delve into these matters then there's not exactly much more to discuss. As for the maturity expressed through my posts, you're free to hold any opinion you wish about that matter, same as anyone else reading my posts.
Now, since this discussion seems to be rapidly heading away from discussion of copyright and quickly heading towards petty personal bickering which I have very little interest in, there's probably little more I'll have to say. If you want to begin the discussion of copyright again I'd be more than happy to, but otherwise we're probably done here. Cheers.
