It depends on the invention. For actual creativity, probably not. Regardless of copyright, Mozart would've written his music. For the incentive to circulate the fruits of your creativity, probably, especially in the copyright-eligible fields. If anyone could sell your song, or give it away for free, then there's little reason to put the song itself out - you'd need some sort of value-add (concerts/live experiences, for instance), and the song itself becomes a mere advertisement for the value-add, which is the real product.
Patents are more complicated, and generally more case-by-case, in terms of the necessity. I presume that the law simply can't reach the level of complexity that would require, though. For something that's not easily reverse-engineered (like, say, biotech processes like cloning or DNA isolation) then patents may not be necessary, as the individual creating the process can exercise sufficient control on their own to want to bring it to market. For something that's costly to develop, but easily reverse-engineered, patents are more likely necessary to encourage the creator to bring the product to market. Here I'm thinking of new processes for, say, curing rubber or cooling a blast furnace's exterior, stuff that once you see how it works, you can easily create your own rip off. Why would you spend all the time experimenting with different temps and exposure times to make better rubber if the next guy could just waltz in and take it?
Obviously costs and benefits are difficult to calculate. Do you measure by the value of the song commercially, or by its artistic merit (which is presumably what you actually want to create)? Do you measure the invention by how far it moves the field forward, or how much it cost to develop, or how difficult it would be to replicate absent instructions from the inventor?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 3/4/12 21:24 (UTC)Patents are more complicated, and generally more case-by-case, in terms of the necessity. I presume that the law simply can't reach the level of complexity that would require, though. For something that's not easily reverse-engineered (like, say, biotech processes like cloning or DNA isolation) then patents may not be necessary, as the individual creating the process can exercise sufficient control on their own to want to bring it to market. For something that's costly to develop, but easily reverse-engineered, patents are more likely necessary to encourage the creator to bring the product to market. Here I'm thinking of new processes for, say, curing rubber or cooling a blast furnace's exterior, stuff that once you see how it works, you can easily create your own rip off. Why would you spend all the time experimenting with different temps and exposure times to make better rubber if the next guy could just waltz in and take it?
Obviously costs and benefits are difficult to calculate. Do you measure by the value of the song commercially, or by its artistic merit (which is presumably what you actually want to create)? Do you measure the invention by how far it moves the field forward, or how much it cost to develop, or how difficult it would be to replicate absent instructions from the inventor?