So how would you better compensate writers for the product of their knowledge and labor? IP is simply the means of enforcing the value of books. If you deny it without proposing a viable alternative, you're denying the value of writing itself.
> So how would you better compensate writers for the product of their knowledge and labor?
It's a good question. I think there's a 2 phase answer. But first, it's important to figure out the numbers. And one thing that quickly becomes apparent is on the order of 99% of writers make $0 from IM laws. IM laws instead, regardless of intent, funnel almost the entirety of profits to 1% of holders.
So the question then becomes, how do you better compensate those 1%? And the answer is you don't. The 1%'s current compensation is artificially inflated, and the 99% is under compensated.
Right now IM laws create artificially high compensation for less meaningful contributions like a 500 page book or 50 page pdf in a publication like Nature, and undervalue more meaningful contributions like small additions to Wikipedia or commits to the Linux kernel. I would much rather have the top 1,000 compensated "authors" in the world never write again than I would have Wikipedia disappear.
I think we should 2 phase the transition away from IM laws. I don't think we should abolish overnight, as that would be very disruptive to the families of folks in the IM industry. I have no sympathy for IM lawyers and IM business folks, but I do think we should have a transition period where we perhaps switch patents from an Intellectual Monopoly system to an X-Prize style system, and perhaps then phase it out (or keep the X-Prize style system, if it seems to be effective). Then in phase 2 the progress of the arts and sciences will flourish so much, I'm not too sure if you need any sort of system to artificially inflate the value of intellectual contributions at all. Creativity of billions of people will be unleashed. For a single example, if I didn't have to worry about IM laws, I (or many other people) could build a viable alternative to Google search in a year. I think the Internet has fundamentally changed the economics of the world by making many more markets feasible. There are so many markets and opportunities now, that if you lowered the cost of product development (which eliminating IM laws would do), I could see an argument where it's feasible that everyone who desired could have a natural monopoly, because there would be so many markets to choose from.
> IP is simply the means of enforcing the value of books. If you deny it without proposing a viable alternative, you're denying the value of writing itself.
IM is one idea. There are plenty of alternatives. When a janitor cleans a room, do we then give that janitor the right to charge a royalty for every person who enters that room?
