>>719186890
>my concern is with artificial restraints on what can and cannot be achieved, intellectual or physical
I just did.
>>719190170
RISC-V is an open CPU architecture, but can you fabricate one right now? No, you'd buy one, but people with the technology can develop it. Granted, not the best example as a permissive/MIT license means some developments may be withheld. I have nothing against making money, just restriction of information.
>>719191117
>Anon, by the nature of IP law something has to be made. You can't copyright or patent a nonexistent idea because it doesn't exist.
IP law is unnatural. Ideas aren't made, they are non-existent goods. Without artificial restrictions, what's stopping anyone drawing someone else's character? He should be flattered.
>You haven't even said how.
Copyrights prevent sharing ideas out of fear of lawsuits and arrest. Ideas lead to getting things made and done but are not an end in themselves. Thus to restrict what people do in the name of protecting ideas, that prevents things being done.
Primarily, you're describing things as they are, and I'm not deluded enough to deny that reality, but the copyright obsessed climate is entirely artificial when societies were built on sharing of ideas, and now we're seeing that slow down (before FOSS came along anyway).
