ysabetwordsmith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2014-06-13 01:45 pm
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2014-06-13 01:45 pm
Entry tags:
Tesla for Everyone
The Tesla company, a leading manufacturer of electric cars, has just ditched their patents in favor of placing that information into open source access. The goal is to encourage more people to use the designs to create more and better zero-emission cars.
Like copyright, patents began as a way of protecting intellectual property so that people could profit from their work and would thereby be encouraged to invent more things, thus benefitting everyone. Currently patents have become a morass of legal mayhem that stifles innovation as much as copyright does. The current trend toward open-source work shows how sharing instead of hoarding can also result in more goodies for everyone.
The challenge we have here is making sure that our creators -- whatever their field -- have some reliable way of making a living so that they can make the goodies we all enjoy. Crowdfunding is great for individual projects. Some people have done really well at it. I'm one of them; although it's not enough for a secure living, it's a stupendous success in light of poetry's marginal position in this society. But crowdfunding doesn't tend to produce a steady income stream. Some other things that have been proposed include a Basic Income and a Reverse Income Tax, both of which would ensure that everyone has enough to meet basic needs. We need to do something, because it's clear that corporations no longer want to employ people at a living wage, so we can't rely on them to keep the economy running anymore. Somebody else needs to step in and make sure that citizens have a way to meet their needs, so that they can do things like invent stuff, write stuff, raise the next generation, and pay bills.
Like copyright, patents began as a way of protecting intellectual property so that people could profit from their work and would thereby be encouraged to invent more things, thus benefitting everyone. Currently patents have become a morass of legal mayhem that stifles innovation as much as copyright does. The current trend toward open-source work shows how sharing instead of hoarding can also result in more goodies for everyone.
The challenge we have here is making sure that our creators -- whatever their field -- have some reliable way of making a living so that they can make the goodies we all enjoy. Crowdfunding is great for individual projects. Some people have done really well at it. I'm one of them; although it's not enough for a secure living, it's a stupendous success in light of poetry's marginal position in this society. But crowdfunding doesn't tend to produce a steady income stream. Some other things that have been proposed include a Basic Income and a Reverse Income Tax, both of which would ensure that everyone has enough to meet basic needs. We need to do something, because it's clear that corporations no longer want to employ people at a living wage, so we can't rely on them to keep the economy running anymore. Somebody else needs to step in and make sure that citizens have a way to meet their needs, so that they can do things like invent stuff, write stuff, raise the next generation, and pay bills.
Re: Well...
Fighting with YouTube, pay services to listen to full songs (also nothing without registering) - that's just mistreatment of the last point "people want to try before they buy". Lots of other fights have been there that I can't recall right now.
If you follow those discussions you get the impression enterprises which administer culture (books, music, movies, video games) are just only busy with getting the most out of the stuff they own rather than making people buy it all. - Although last option should be more of their concern.
Another thing is that in discussions about copyright, things like patents never seem to appear. It's mostly about music and movies - the big products.
Although intelligent mind knows patens also belong to that.
That literally makes the point which side the discussion is biased by.