What do these entrepreneurs all have in common? They own, operate, or invest in server-side Internet services. Such innovative products do not need IP enforcement because their core IP assets are protected by the client/server barrier, or they depend on network effects to protect first-mover advantage.
Innovations which must be shipped in whole to the client--like new music, new movies, new games, packaged software, client device software, pharmaceuticals--are not so blessed.
For example: most video game companies ship their entire IP directly to the customer. What keeps from making a copy of Skyrim and selling it on my website for half the price of the original? The legal enforcement of IP protections.
I think it is really easy to fall into a bubble where "innovation" comes to mean "the latest hosted social web service". There's a lot more to innovation than that. Which was more innovative--The Dark Knight, or Triggit? I would say TDK, which was a major cultural event in the U.S. Or how about Gardasil vs. I Can Haz Cheezeburger? One will prevent thousands of cases of uterine cancer, the other hosts user-generated cat pictures.
You're not responding to the article. It is not asking for the standard protections to be dismantled. Indeed, as you point out yourself, piracy of computer games is already a criminal offence that stops you from selling Skyrim rips.
The point in the article is that any additional laws or powers represent a failing strategy when the problems of many industries are due to a failure to meet changing consumer demand; and furthermore that the opportunity cost of strengthening IP law is the collateral damage to innovation.
You are also wrong to suggest that server code cannot benefit from IP protection. If code is misappropriated (e.g. disgruntled employee with git access), only copyright prevents it being released/sold and subsequently operated by others. Furthermore, it is those protections that allow the legitimate developer to confidently sell their business to a third party.
The bigger issue with your argument that IP, copyright, etc legislation needs to start having some separations. Medicine (physical) and mp3s (digital) are so drastically different that there's no way you can have one piece of effective legislation that covers both correctly.
Your example might not be making the point that you want. Drugs are covered under patent law while music is covered under copyright. Unless you're arguing that the MP3 process should not be patentable that same way as the process of making a new drug.
The legal enforcement of IP protections is already in place. They are not recommending any removal or rollback of the existing legal framework, they are suggesting that there are better things to focus on than expanding the current protections.
Having said that, the list of signers does have a very people-who-don't-have-this-problem feel to it.
To be fair to "I Can Haz Cheezeburger", which admittedly is hard to do on forum like this, it brings entertainment to millions of all ages and hurts no one. Where are the negative side effects in that?
Where was the argument that "I Can Haz Cheezeburger" is harmful? The argument is that they don't benefit from new copyright legislation, and any new legislation is likely to be a burden to them because they'd likely have to police their users more intensively. The list of signatures is from companies like these.
On the other hand, industries that rely on shipping an easily duplicable product with high up-front costs for development are likely to benefit from strong copyright enforcement. They are not on this list, in spite of being arguably more innovative.
Neither result is surprising, but saying "Entrepreneurs" and "innovators" are generally in support of less copyright legislation is disingenuous.
Well, there's only one Skyrim. Imagine if you streamed a largely procedurally generated videogame from the Internet though--you'd have an infinity of related games on tap and it would essentially be SaaS. Same for procedurally generated (or live) music, or sports as they are now, or live theatre. Maybe static, finite IP just has less economic value and is less and less practically excludable as technology advances.
I'm actually convinced the future of economic activity will involve lots of live performance.
Extrapolating the trends of automation I see fewer and fewer people involved in the production and distribution of physical goods. Distribution is set for a major workforce implosion with automated packaging and transportation. Production is already largely automated, and becoming more so. Meanwhile, demand for physical goods is at or near peak capacity in much of the world, so cheaper distribution will not mean more goods will be needed.
So, I suspect the majority of the workforce will not be involved in the physical part of the economy, not in production, distribution or services. The economy requires scarcity, but it does not require physicality. What is more scarce than digital live performance? Why couldn't NPC's in games be real people? Why should it be strange to earn a living live-acting a role in a game, and then spending most of your money on live-created digital goods?
The current IP laws make an assumption of mass-distributed centrally-produced IP, and that's why they won't hold in this individualized IP future. Currently the digital economy is run by the agents of mass-distribution: the MPAA, apple, microsoft and so on. While they may seem all-powerful now, in a 100 years their model of everyone owning the same product will seem quaint and archaic. Why would you want the exact same product as your neighbor?
> What keeps from making a copy of Skyrim and selling it on my website for half the price of the original? The legal enforcement of IP protections.
More likely the fact that the odds are low that your pirated Skyrim does not contain at least one of malware, spyware, botnet trojans, viruses, or other crap no one wants on their computer.
The warez scene was cool when it was novelty, but now it's more likely to be an attack vector of some sort.
It's just an easier user experience just to buy the software and know it will install and run without any problems.
Innovations which must be shipped in whole to the client--like new music, new movies, new games, packaged software, client device software, pharmaceuticals--are not so blessed.
For example: most video game companies ship their entire IP directly to the customer. What keeps from making a copy of Skyrim and selling it on my website for half the price of the original? The legal enforcement of IP protections.
I think it is really easy to fall into a bubble where "innovation" comes to mean "the latest hosted social web service". There's a lot more to innovation than that. Which was more innovative--The Dark Knight, or Triggit? I would say TDK, which was a major cultural event in the U.S. Or how about Gardasil vs. I Can Haz Cheezeburger? One will prevent thousands of cases of uterine cancer, the other hosts user-generated cat pictures.