1) A lot of people would immediately stop contributing to open source. In fact i ahead have because ML is being used to launder my work to use it without resourcing my licenses. Same with any other area where people share their work for free. It would all be monetized by those with access to better advertising.
2) Anything published would be immediately scooped up by the big players. How would a small competitor like Nebula compete with YouTube if YouTube took all its content and offered it for free with ads?
3) How would you even know who the original creator was if those stealing the work stripped away attribution? They already do but at least you have some limited ways to fight them.
2) what do you mean "scooped up"? What's to stop a small platform from providing the same content that a large platform does, if we've done away with intellectual property?
3) I'm confused. If you're paying somebody to create a proposed work, and then they create it and get paid for doing so, and then nobody is allowed to restrict access to it, where does the theft come in?
You have to understand in this world, advertising and network effects are much stronger than building a good product.
2) Again, advertising, cost of storage, having a better (meaning more addiction inducing) algorithm, etc.
3) You said it yourself, people have to create something first (which will be stolen or as you phrase it, unrestricted) so they can prove themselves so that anybody pays them to produce the next thing. Or would you pay a random guy with no credentials and no portfolio claiming he can create what you want?
Or what if somebody creates something really good but it's a one off. He changes hobbies, has children, has to care for an elderly parent, ... and doesn't have time to create more. Should he not get paid for the value of his existing work?
Your take basically means people will only get paid as long as more value can be extracted from them and then they're no longer economically viable so screw them.
Somebody else owning the solution to our problems is why we tolerate such abuse. Otherwise we could cut out the abuse parts and solve the problem directly.
3) I was unspecific about how much money they'd get ahead of time versus upon completion because I figure that ought to be a case-by-case thing.
The idea that people should be able to live well based on having done good work in the past is a good one. Let's make that happen, but why should it have anything to do with property? If I build a particularly strong bridge which surpasses expectations re: longevity shouldn't I get the same retroactive compensation as somebody who wrote a particularly good book? If I publish freely the cure for a disease, should society not reward me to a greater extent than if I sold the patent to a company that will decline to act on the discovery because it's more profitable to treat that disease than to cure it?
The things you seem to want from intellectual property are important, but pushing the concept of property beyond what is natural for it is a harmful way to achieve them.
A) its not working particularly well for the artists
B) its not working at all for workers outside that domain
C) it has all kinds of really awful side effects which are far more harmful than whatever good we can reasonably expect it (property) to do.
When IP was invented to justify the church's right to prevent the wrong kind of bible from being printed we didn't have the ability to implement the alternatives that are available to us today. The best we could do is play-by-the-rules-or-we'll-take-your-printer. We have new capabilities now, let's solve these problems head on instead of leaning on ideas from the 1600's to do so.
